&gt; I can totally understand the argument that I should track down these people and ask them to update the package.<p>You shouldn&#x27;t even need to track them down.  If it&#x27;s a packaging and distribution channel you&#x27;ve used before, you should already be in communication with the package maintainer.  Yes, it&#x27;s <i>possible</i> that there could be a problem with a package you didn&#x27;t know existed, but such cases are very much the exception.  Even then, the right thing to do would probably be to suggest a better-supported alternative and&#x2F;or introduce yourself to the people maintaining that package.<p>&gt;  It could be that they tried several times to update their package<p>It <i>could</i> be.  We&#x27;re giving rather a lot of benefit of the doubt to the developers, aren&#x27;t we?  Why not give some to the packagers?  They have their own standards they need to maintain, for the sake of their users.  As often as not, packaging delays are the result of developers just throwing stuff over the wall for someone else to fix up.  We need to <i>proactively</i> fight against that tendency.<p>&gt; they &quot;learned&quot; it was best to let the package users demand updates, not the suppliers.<p>Again, it&#x27;s not either&#x2F;or.  <i>Both</i> developers and packagers need to be part of that conversation.  Neither gets to walk away and say it&#x27;s somebody else&#x27;s problem.  As always in open source, collaboration is critical.