I think using a 'stable' two year old release should be frowned upon even more, but that's perhaps only my opinion :)
Think about it this way: as it's a fairly complete lib and obviously inactive (except for latest 1.1.1 it died around 2005, right?) it's highly probable it fixed several bugs while not introducing new ones :)
---- Original message ----
From: Barry deFreese <email@example.com>
Sent: 9 May 2008 18:07 +00:00
To: Cyril Brulebois <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: libphysfs
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 09/05/2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> I was reviewing your package when I noticed a 1.1.1 upstream release.
>> Should I finish the review and upload 1.0.1, or wait for an update to
> I followed the link in the copyright file, and it appears that 1.0.1
> is pretty much oudated already:
> [ ] physfs-1.0.0.tar.gz 03-Jan-2004 16:13 500k
> [ ] physfs-1.0.1.tar.gz 23-Jul-2005 20:27 527k
> [ ] physfs-1.1.0.tar.gz 23-Jul-2005 20:27 483k
> [ ] physfs-1.1.1.tar.gz 03-Apr-2007 01:16 337k
> 1. http://icculus.org/physfs/downloads/
> I guess I shall favour the latter solution?
Apparently the 1.1 branch is a "development" branch. I can try to
package that if we prefer but I thought that was generally frowned upon?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org