3 ms·
Cases like that makes me laugh a lot. A decade ago, we used to rely on Linux distribution repos, and any serious company would have its own local copy on its ow
by greatgib 4y ago
Cases like that makes me laugh a lot. A decade ago, we used to rely on Linux distribution repos, and any serious company would have its own local copy on its own repository.
Things were a little bit slower to get new versions but things were safe and reliable.
Now, cool kids on the block arrived a few years ago, and decided that they were a lot smarter to have always the last version of everything, in direct and instant way, and build on moving sands. They were thinking that old farts were dinosaurs doing legacy software dev.
All we can say now is that by forgetting the past, you are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoI guess the question is: would package maintainers have caught this? (I don't know the answer; I suspect that it would slip by some but probably not all.)
- greatgib 4y agoIt would have, because I don't know how it is done nowadays, but back then, each package repository maintainers were watching closely the source they were releasing. As signing with their own keys. They would only build from source for example, and rebuilt by the distribution infrastructure. And in addition, the slow pace of having things like stable, testing, unstable was to give the opportunity to serious users to ensure to used package that were stable, safe and battle tested.