[arch-general] arch health

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:05:01 +0000, Carsten Mattner wrote:
>In the past there have been just crashes or buggy behavior that
>only got fixed with the version-next++ and until then arch had
>to live with the broken and regressed version as the default
>since there wasn't a revoke/downgrade via the index. Since
>you can downgrade manually, the index ought to have mechanism
>for this too. Hope this makes sense.

There already were "local is newer than" packages by official
repositories, IOW a new version of a package was provided by an
update and later an older version was provided. I don't remember an
example, but it definitively already happened.

However, those concerns about Arch's health are grotesque.

Please open a new thread for the ffmpeg topic and post the links to the
upstream bug report and to the Arch bug report. If you want to avoid
that others experience the same issue, this is the way to go.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:12 +0100, Mauro Santos via arch-general wrote:
>If you've reported the bug both upstream and in arch's bug tracker and
>it turns out it really is a nasty bug it will most probably either get
>a downgrade or will be patched quickly (after upstream fixes it).

At least upstream would fix it.

Bugs are something normal, even bugs that require to restore data from
backups, because the original data gets corrupted. Sometimes software
upgrades require to convert data for usage with the new software
version, so even when downgrading the software, the data needs to be
restored from a backup.

Hiccups aren't something that serious as Heartbleed was.

Even if _one_ bug should be very dangerous, it wouldn't make sense to
add a new revoke/downgrade feature, just for a single bug.