Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

bugs.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#91

Post by zanny »

digi_owl wrote: post #86
zanny wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different versions of the same libraries for different applications is still the same problem. Fundamentally developers are writing software that distributors and integrators do not want to actually ship. There are two independent circumstances to that, though. Either the developer does not deserve downstream trust because they abuse their users by breaking their APIs, ABIs, or UX's without due notice or process. Thi…

From where i sit, what seems to block most distributors from upgrading is the rigidity of their tradition package managers when dealing with multiple versions. Thus they are reluctant to adopt new version of something, because the dependency chain may force a update of a large part of a installed system. A package manager that can handle multiple version frees them from this worry, without the admin of a system havin…

In general, if new versions of libraries are breaking the ABI or API, the library developer needs to be thoroughly scolded. We are well capable and have the necessary workflows to create ABI and API stable feature releases. If vendors chose not to use these practices to create stable software, we need to criticize them and work to replace developers who don't respect their users enough not to break everything on every release.

Arch, for example, has clang3.5 and clang available because 3.7 was an ABI break. It has gstreamer 0.10 and 1.0 as separate packages because it was an API break. These projects respect these design constraints and should be trustworthy, and notify downstream of breaking issues like that well in advance so packagers can avoid repackaging upgrades expecting smooth transitions. But its unfair to users and developers to use carte blanche policy of freezing everything because some bad apples cannot maintain ABI/API stability.

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#92

Post by jarcane »

dfc wrote: post #89
jarcane wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment, the Racket package in the current stable release of Debian is using 6.1. That is an 8 month old package. Even unstable is only on on 6.3, which itself is almost 6 months old. The last time I used Debian was at most a year ago, and at that time the stable package for Racket was still 5.3, which came out in 2013 . And this same pattern repeated itself so often where programming tools were concerned that…

Correct racket version 6.3 is 6 months old. But 6.4 came out two months ago, that seems to be the relevant age statistic. That seems a little disingenuous of you? The software distribution and management scheme you are advocating for sounds like a security nightmare. Administrators are already bad enough with applying vendor updates. Can you imagine what things would be like if administrators had to track all of the…

1) No, it's not disingenuous, those are the package versions included in the present Debian branches. Yes, 6.4 is two months old. So why the fuck is it still not even included in unstable, and why do I need a PPA for it on Ubuntu?

2) I am describing how literally every other major OS works. That is how Windows works. That is how OS X works. There is nothing impractical or intractable about this problem. Mainstream software has been solving it for decades.

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#95

Post by ashitlerferad »

digi_owl wrote: post #21
castratikron wrote: post #14

Huh. Ran into this behavior yesterday, coincidentally. I also think there's another bug with xscreensaver where it will capture and "hang on" to your keyboard after you've unlocked the machine. Maybe it's time to switch...

> I also think there's another bug with xscreensaver where it will capture and "hang on" to your keyboard after you've unlocked the machine. You sure you are running the latest version? That is the origins of this message. That Debian (and perhaps other distros) would fail to push xscreensavers in a timely manner, resulting in JWZ getting emails about issues he had long since fixed. This seems to stem from a policy t…

> only security issues ... will be processed

That isn't actually the policy, for example:

https://www.debian.org/News/2016/20160402

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#96

Post by ashitlerferad »

kuschku wrote: post #6

I’ve seen similar issues with several (!) Debian packages again and again. Upstream has fixed lots of bugs, critical crashes, and CVEs, and Debian stable takes weeks or months to backport them, and even then only the CVEs. Not even fixing major usability bugs. I’ve seen users on versions so old where nothing is able it interoperate with them anymore, and the users unable to compile from source themselves. Currently,…

If you want a specific bug fixed in stable, there are avenues to doing that:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs...

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#97

Post by ashitlerferad »

sp332 wrote: post #16
captainmuon wrote: post #9

After skimming the thread, I'm tempted to say: tell jwz "tough luck" and keep xscreensaver, with the message patched out, just out of spite. After all, he put it under a permissive license, so he should not be surprised that people actually use that license to do whatever they want.

He admits as much in the post, so you don't really have any cause for spite. Respecting his request would improve everyone's experience.

Respecting his request would mean removing xscreensaver which would be bad for users.

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#98

Post by sp332 »

ashitlerferad wrote: post #97
sp332 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He admits as much in the post, so you don't really have any cause for spite. Respecting his request would improve everyone's experience.

Respecting his request would mean removing xscreensaver which would be bad for users.

I don't see why a package maintainer would patch out the warning instead of just packaging the new version. But if it comes to that, it's better for the users to get xscreensaver from a more reliable source than that maintainer.

Re: “This version of XScreenSaver is very old. Please upgrade”

#100

Post by digi_owl »

zanny wrote: post #91
digi_owl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From where i sit, what seems to block most distributors from upgrading is the rigidity of their tradition package managers when dealing with multiple versions. Thus they are reluctant to adopt new version of something, because the dependency chain may force a update of a large part of a installed system. A package manager that can handle multiple version frees them from this worry, without the admin of a system havin…

In general, if new versions of libraries are breaking the ABI or API, the library developer needs to be thoroughly scolded. We are well capable and have the necessary workflows to create ABI and API stable feature releases. If vendors chose not to use these practices to create stable software, we need to criticize them and work to replace developers who don't respect their users enough not to break everything on ever…

A new version is about more than APIs and ABIs. It may introduce a new feature, or it may fix a bug that previously needed a nasty workaround or made something practically impossible while present.
Post reply on HN