Re: OT: latest stable version not recommended

[mwoehlke]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:
> > > http://directory.fsf.org/gzip.html; no mention there
> >
> > 1.3.5 is mentioned on that Directory page as the "(devel)" release.
> >
> > Anyway, I wrote rms about the lack of official releases in recent
> > decades.
>
> For what it's worth, I was responsible for gzip alpha releases 1.3
> through 1.3.5, and would be willing to generate a 1.3.6 if there's
> interest.

If you can get it marked "stable" (and especially represented as such on 
fsf.org), I at least would be interested. As I said, after *seven* 
years, I think it's about time. :-)

> Initially I thought gzip 1.3 (released 1999-12-21) was going to be
> official, but the maintainer demurred.  I lost contact with him some
> time after that.  As I understand it he's busy doing other things.

Would that (and the 2003 update date) mean that gzip is unmaintained?

> The gzip home page <http://www.gzip.org/> hasn't been updated since
> July 2003, but it still says that a new official version of gzip will
> be released soon.  That comment about the new version been there since
> at least January 2002, according to web.archive.org.

--
Matthew
My preferred shell is Christian. It's Bourne Again.