witty is up to version 2.99 now but it isnt in the repository

If you can find a ppa for the new version then you are free to add it. Ubuntu doesnt necessarily go with whats new. It goes with what is known to work so if the MOTU havent got round to testing it then it will not be in the official repos

The compile sequence will be in the INSTALL or README file. You should also run:

sudo apt-get install build-essential

(if you havent already)

Install cmake package from synaptic and then read INSTALL or README file.

> Ubuntu doesn't necessarily go with whats new.
This is not and acceptable consideration and it's not official, though.
If Ubuntu doesn't intend to keep up with newer versions, then the package should be dropped from the repos.

Lucid has v2.2.4-3build1 and Maverick has v3.1.2-2 in respective repos.
(source: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/witty)
Upstream is v3.1.3
(source: http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt#/download)

So Ubuntu looks like it's taking care for newer versions, but not enough care for the current release.

So the question stands still: why (and how) on earth Ubuntu is supporting a very old version for that package?

> Ubuntu doesn't necessarily go with whats new.
This is not and acceptable consideration and it's not official, though.
If Ubuntu doesn't intend to keep up with newer versions, then the package should be dropped from the repos.

Lucid has v2.2.4-3build1 and Maverick has v3.1.2-2 in respective repos.
(source: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/witty)
Upstream is v3.1.3
(source: http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt#/download)

So Ubuntu looks like it's taking care for newer versions, but not enough care for the current release.

So the question stands still: why (and how) on earth Ubuntu is supporting a very old version for that package?

If you want "official" Log onto freenode and join the official channel and type:

!newest
or
!latest

I can save you the bother but you can try if you don't believe me:

Packages in Ubuntu may not be the latest. Ubuntu aims for stability, "latest" may not be a good idea. Post-release updates are only considered if they are: fixes for security vulnerabilities, high impact bug fixes, or unintrusive bug fixes with substantial benefit. See also !backports.

Source:
http://ubottu.com/factoids.cgi?search=latest This link is a list of ALL Ubottu's factoids.

Newer doesn't mean better, the slightly older versions are tried and tested so will give new users to Linux a better experience rather than glitchy bleeding edge stuff. As the factoid states, you can add extra repos and PPAs to your system to get later versions.

If a bug is submitted stating that a huge security flaw has been found in a package then this is cause for alarm and the newer version will be made available for update as soon as possible. Otherwise there is no huge reason to keep up. The normal package review will take place in due time and will be upgraded.

Your points are interesting but haven't convinced me, actionparsnip.
Either witty v3.1.2 is good and stable for Maverick AND for Lucid, or it is not for both.
A fact is that you compile and test a package and it turns out to be broken/unstable/exploitable/dangerous.
Anything else is a factoid or, more precisely, an opinion, wherever you find it.
So, keeping v2 of witty in Lucid and v3 in Maverick is still a questionable decision unless you document the reasons.

a factoid is what the official bot in the official ubutu support channel will say when you trigger it as I say above, so is not an opinion. It's how canonical are running the show.

I suggest you log a but and/or contact the MOTU (masters of the universe) to ask them why, its a more direct approach.

The OS is also not a rolling release like debian is so package reviews and updates have gaps but they do get there.

Whatever it's brought as a justification for keeping v2 (which is 1 year old and 1 major version behind) in the CURRENT release and v3 for the FORTHCOMING one, just sounds as excuses with no technical bases.
Why keeping up with some packages and not with some others? Maybe because some are "cooler" than others and are more appealing for business.
This is my opinion, of course.

The version in the repo is known to work. Ubuntu (as I said earlier) is not a rolling release and so the packages are reviewed periodically. When new packages get released they will be compiled and tested so the Ubuntu works. Other distros simply upgrade the packages do get issues. Ubuntu is made for new users who want their OS to work (and not get tonnes of issue to which short sighted windows idiots will retort "Linux sucks" etc) and the older version is KNOWN to work so it is used.

If you log a bug showing what security holes the new version the new version resolves and it may get fasttracked to the official repo.

Maverick has 3.1.2 in its repo:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/witty/3.1.2-2/+build/1732629

I don't advise you install the debs here as you will get some messy dependancy conundrum but it can be resolved with more maverick debs and essentially you may as well install maverick which (again) I don't recommend as it is still in Alpha stages of development.

I have no idea about what a "rolling release" is.
Certainly you will have and cause problems by going with non-current packages.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/brasero/+bug/572942
I don't mean "staying on the bleeding edge", but at least at the current major version.
Anyway, this discussion seems to say that LTS will keep old versions because they just work and don't cause any blame.

No way.

Rolling release tends to stay closer to the latest release and is less structured. Debian uses this model. Ubuntu has a 3 month package review to see which packages need to be updated etc, these then get updated.

Learned how to compile and install it manually.
A little bit tricky, but now it works.
Looking forward to new upgrades in the future.
Note:
Seems the 3.x.x branches aren't too stable.
Waiting for the issue rates to go down before I try them out.

I already did manual compilation with both 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 and I found it quite stable.