3 ms·

Its not about vetoing, it is about Debian shipping broken software that is never updated and it drives developers mad to constantly get the same bug report for

by zanny 11y ago

Its not about vetoing, it is about Debian shipping broken software that is never updated and it drives developers mad to constantly get the same bug report for the same broken feature that was fixed years ago upstream. I personally hope none of my software ends up in Debian Stable, because if it did anything broken in it at the point of freeze would haunt me for half a decade.

_delirium 11y ago
Well if upstream doesn't want Debian to ship broken software in a stable version, there's a solution: upstream should improve their quality control and not ship broken software in the first place. ;) But I mean, there's no actual obligation to update software. Lots of redistributors don't update to the latest version for many reasons. Apple ships old GNU utilities because they don't like GPLv3. FreeBSD ships an old version of OpenBSD's pf firewall because their patched version is hard to forward-port. OpenBSD ships a truly ancient gcc for a mixture of technical and license reasons. And Debian updates software on a fixed stable-release cycle. I suppose it's fair that upstream can complain about this: GNU and jwz don't have to be happy that people are shipping old versions of their software. But people are also probably not going to stop doing it.