See https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8761617.html: ``` --- xscreensaver-6.01/driver/dialog.c.orig 2022-11-13 11:20:48.097001236 +0100 +++ xscreensaver-6.01/driver/dialog.c 2022-11-13 11:26:04.350979562 +0100 @@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ lines[i].align = CENTER; i++; - if (time ((time_t *) 0) - XSCREENSAVER_RELEASED > 60*60*24*30*17) + /*if (time ((time_t *) 0) - XSCREENSAVER_RELEASED > 60*60*24*30*17) { lines[i].text = _("Update available!\nThis version is very old.\n"); lines[i].font = ws->error_font; @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ lines[i].align = CENTER; i++; } - else if (strstr (ws->version, "a") || + else*/ if (strstr (ws->version, "a") || strstr (ws->version, "b")) { lines[i].text = _("PRE-RELEASE VERSION"); ``` It currently warns if the version was released too long ago. I don't eally think this is useful for us to have and it just leads to false bug reports if there's an issue with a newer version (like how for a while, it wouldn't build on arm, and we were waiting on a fix).
We better be quiet with this here, otherwise we will summon upstream and he will have a very friendly discussion with us about this. Like here, when this hit the debian bugtracker: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703#158 (go ahead it's a hilarious read) Upstream asked them to *NOT* patch that out. And then again, does this affect our users in a negative way? Iirc this timebomb goes off after 17 months. We seldom have a version this old in the tree, and if a user decides not to update this, it is ok for the user to get a warning about it, isn't it? I suggest if we get into a situation where we need to keep a version in the tree for this long because a newer version has any issues, I will patch it out on this version. But for now we are good.
It came up in #gentoo but either the user was out of date or we had been super slow to stable the new version (I know it'd been a while, I haven't checked how long it was). I agree though, so let's leave it.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > It came up in #gentoo but either the user was out of date or we had been > super slow to stable the new version (I know it'd been a while, I haven't > checked how long it was). > > I agree though, so let's leave it. Probably super slow to stable the new version as it did not have a maintainer
