Re: Ancient squid and unattentive maintainer.
In article <E13rbisfirstname.lastname@example.org>,
Yotam <email@example.com> wrote:
>As it seems, the current squid package has been left unchanged for quite a while
And for good reason.
>Squid 2.3 adds a few very nifty features such as allowing the limitation
>of reply sizes, meaning that the proxy wouldn't allow the user to get an object
>larger than X. I mailed the maintainer about six months ago, asking him why 2.3
>isn't packaged, he claimed that it wasn't stable enough yet but this is not the
>story now, a new development branch is under way, and I've been using 2.3 with
>overwhelming satisfaction for a long time now...
If you ask Henrik Nordstrom's (he's the main squid guy at the moment) if
squid-2.3 is suited for production use, he says NO.
If even one of the squid developers himself says to stay with 2.2.5,
why should I move to squid-2.3 ?
>I would like to know why it
>hasn't been packaged yet.
See above. If you had mailed me directly I'd have given you the
As soon as 2.4 becomes -STABLE I'll package it.
People get the operating system they deserve.