[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lindsay Allen) writes: > > In another interesting note, when I replace mc.ext from mc-4 source to > > /etc/mc/mc.ext, *.deb and *.tar.gz browsing is lot faster using > > mc_3.5.17-1_i386.deb:) If you are wondering why I didn't keep mc-4, I like > > to > > keep this system *.deb format as much as possible, so I'll wait for > > mc-4.deb:) > > You might be waiting for a long time. The package maintainer seems to > have lost interest. Perhaps we ask Paul nicely if he would take on the > job? > Did you mail the official package maintainer directly, Lindsay?
Note that there is an *unofficial* Debian mc-4.0 binary provided by me available on the regular Midnight Commander FTP sites, which can be installed within the regular Debian package management. And yes, i would love to take over maintenance of MC to keep it more up to date than it was kept in the past. I already had an email conversation with the current maintainer of the MC package Fernando Alegre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> because i wanted to take over maintenance of MC out of being unsatisfied with the update frequency as well. Fernando stated that he wants to keep the package. Unfortunately he also stated, that he won't make an update release for stable but that he will concentrate on an libc6 release for unstable. I suppose his source distribution will compile with stable's libc5 anyway. Anyway, i consider it rather strange that Fernando isn't bothering to participate in this thread? But probably he is only reading along in debian-devel and not debian-user and simply doesn't know of it at all. > The odd man out seemed to be tar, so I downgraded elm to the bo/tar with > the result that mc now works as advertised. The question now is - do I > lodge a bug report on mc or on tar? What evidence is there to support > either action? > I suppose you'd rather report a bug on tar. I had actually trouble with a former tar as well (it segfaulted with "tar cvMf ...") and the solution was to simply recompile from it's unaltered Debian source package to make it work again. > mc_4.0-1 is a big improvement for me and I suggest that you all get hold > of a copy. There are copies on many mirrors including sunsite. > Yes, mc-4.0 is a *very* much better version of MC and i wouldn't want to downgrade to mc-3.5.17 again. Anyway i think it is necessary to keep stable up to date with an officially released non-devel version like mc-4.0 and i hope that Fernando will make up his mind and provides a binary for stable as well. Maybe interested parties should ask him politely for an update in stable? Cheers, P. *8^) -- Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .