> > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay > is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and > maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition > plan from 2.6 has sense due to API and behaviors changes. We have > simply to cope with two different versions, as already happens > for other libraries.
I guess ron will happily package 2.8 for you if you fix all the bugs in it first. If 2.8 is worse than 2.6 (which crashes here way too often), then it doesn't make sense to package it at all. Better hope that 3.0 will be better... -- Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bzed.de/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]