Jeffrey Altman <jalt...@your-file-system.com> writes: > On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Ken Elkabany wrote:
>> 1.6.0pre1 which was packaged with Ubuntu 11.10. Should we make it a >> priority to upgrade? > 1.6.0pre1 is not an official OpenAFS release. It was a tagged > pre-release. Anyone that deploys pre-releases should be prepared to > upgrade as each new pre-release and the final release are issued. This is at least partly my fault, at least sort of. The problem is the mismatch between the Debian and Ubuntu release schedules. I use unstable extensively in Debian for new OpenAFS pre-releases so that they can get broader testing, rather than hiding them in experimental, but do so with an eye to Debian's release schedule to ensure that we don't freeze with a pre-release. However, for packages not independently maintained in Ubuntu, Ubuntu pulls versions from Debian unstable and then just freezes with whatever they happened to have at the time. This means that they can end up with some really unfortunate choices in their releases. I'm not sure there's any really good way to fix this, given that I don't track Ubuntu's release cycle (or use it at all myself). -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info