I believe I understand your point.<p>However, &quot;What should the Taskwarrior developers do to fix that?&quot;<p>Let&#x27;s suppose I have a package, which I update quarterly, and I have a public announcements list, set up for people to be notified about new releases, and I answer support emails.<p>Someone sends me an email saying the version they get through Fink is a year out of date.<p>What is my responsibility as a developer? Do I contact the Fink maintainer myself? Or is it more effective for a user to ask for help?<p>I can totally understand the argument that I should track down these people and ask them to update the package.<p>But I can also understand the argument that I&#x27;ve set up an announcement list, and provide support, so what more do maintainers need?<p>Yes, the personal touch helps, and maintainers get little feedback or support. But at this point it isn&#x27;t really &quot;packaging&quot; but &quot;interfacing with third-party distributors&quot;.<p>You made the comment &#x27;Anyone who can&#x27;t do that, or isn&#x27;t willing to, can&#x27;t claim to have &quot;learned all they can&quot; about software delivery,&#x27;.<p>Going back to my hypothetical, if all of the other package distributors are up to date (RedHat, Anaconda, Homebrew, ...) and only Fink is not, how does the failure with Fink show that I haven&#x27;t learned all I can about software delivery?<p>Really, however, we don&#x27;t know the history of why that comment is there. It could be that they tried several times to update their package until finally giving up. If that were true, then they &quot;learned&quot; it was best to let the package users demand updates, not the suppliers.