ports/graphics/netpbm out of date

[Alex Kozlov]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:45:03PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Mar-29 13:51:21 +0200, Oliver Fromme <olli at lurza.secnetix.de> wrote:
>>Both graphics/netpbm and graphics/netpbm-devel are *WAY*
>>out of date (5 to 6 years).
> 
> I don't understand you.  In my experience, the netpbm ports have
> always been updated fairly regularly.  The ports currently have:
> STABLE_PORTVERSION=     10.26.64
> DEVEL_PORTVERSION=      10.35.80
> 
> 10.26.64 is the last of the 10.26 series and was released
> almost exactly 18 months ago.
> 
> 10.35.80 is the current "stable" version and was released 
> about 5 weeks ago.  The port was updated the day following
> the release.
>From netpbm website(http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/release.html):

Advanced: This series stabilizes for about a quarter year, then is rebased
to the then-current Development release. That's typically bug fixes, but
some enhancements fit the category and some bug fixes do not. 
"Stabilizes" means that new releases contain only low risk high reward
changes from the previous release.

Stable: This is like Advanced, except that it gets rebased to the
then-current Advanced release instead of Development, which means it the
current release always has at least 3 months of stabilization. 
When it is time to rebase the Advanced series, if the current Stable
release has gone a whole quarter year with no reported bug, we move all
the current releases down one series: Stable becomes Super Stable, then
Advanced becomes Stable, then Development becomes Advanced.
At the moment(http://netpbm.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/netpbm/stable/version.mk?view=log): 10.47.27

Super Stable:
The current release in this series has no known bugs and virtually no
undiscovered bugs in it. It may be years behind in new function.
At the moment(http://sourceforge.net/projects/netpbm/files): 10.35.80


So why netpbm is 10.26.64 and graphics/netpbm-devel(??) is 10.35.80?

>>Is anybody working on updating the netpbm ports?  Is there
>>any problem with it that I'm not aware of?
> A quick check would have identified the maintainer (now Cc'd).
Sigh.


--
Adios