[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ancient squid and unattentive maintainer.



In article <E13rbis-0002eo-00@linux.makif.omer.k12.il>,
Yotam  <yotam@makif.omer.k12.il> wrote:
>As it seems, the current squid package has been left unchanged for quite a while
>now.

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
same answer.

As soon as 2.4 becomes -STABLE I'll package it.

Mike.
-- 
People get the operating system they deserve.



Reply to: