The unlock screen of xscreensaver shows an annoying warning after ~1 year since release, "This version of XScreenSaver is very old! Please upgrade!". I belive the code behind this warning should be patched out in Gentoo. Please see a releavant Slackware-related thread <http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/error-message-when-starting-desktop-jwz-screensaver-package-too-old-4175512984/>.
1) Please post your `emerge --info x11-misc/xscreensaver' output in a comment. 2) Please post the command and its output verbatim, including information about the hack you were running and perhaps the package that installs that hack.
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #1) > 2) Please post the command and its output verbatim, including information > about the hack you were running and perhaps the package that installs that > hack. Actually, forget about that one. The first request should be enough. Unless there is some kind of y2k15 bug lurking in the code.
(In reply to Evgeny Stambulchik from comment #0) > The unlock screen of xscreensaver shows an annoying warning after ~1 year > since release, "This version of XScreenSaver is very old! Please upgrade!". > I belive the code behind this warning should be patched out in Gentoo. You apparently haven't read the code in question. Gentoo has been keeping up pretty nicely: *xscreensaver-5.26 (12 Dec 2013) 12 Dec 2013; Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> -xscreensaver-5.23.ebuild, +xscreensaver-5.26.ebuild: Version bump (bug #493976 by R. Whitney). That version went stable in February 2014. Since then, 5.29 went stable after its release in June 2014, and we're currently stabilising the 5.32 release which entered the tree in November 2014. There is no way for you to have hit that 1-year warning if you updated your systems diligently (say, once a month) or even sloppily (say, once a year). So no, we will not patch out that warning.
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #3) Hmm, I do update my system more or less diligently. I forgot, though, that xscreensaver remains permanently loaded in memory (all further invocations just pass commands to the resident copy via 'xscreensaver-command'), so an update in fact did nothing until the resident copy was explicitly killed. Together with a very long uptime of my system, this resulted in the confusion. Sorry about that. But I still believe that it is responsibility of distribution maintainers, and not upstream authors to set criteria about periods of support of a given version etc.
