2 ms·

To be honest it's a pretty good track record if you can only remember one instance of botching a backport, it's many years old, and it didn't have any security

• pm215 3y ago
  True. The one I remember is when they mis-backported some version of libncurses so it was the v4 ABI but had the v3 soname, but that was like two decades ago :-)
• mst 3y ago
  Given I work for https://shadow.cat/ https://shadow.cat/ and we do primarily perl/CPAN contracting, consultancy and commercial support (and don't run RHEL ourselves) I remember this one because I had to help multiple customers and probably by the end three digits' worth of companies via community support to work around the debacle. I suspect more man-hours were lost to the (now reversed for quite a while thanks to the Fedora team) decision to have their 'perl' package only be half a perl install (and to mass report the resulting problems that decision created to cpan authors without ever sending a single patch) but the original subject was things they botched by accident rather than things they broke deliberately. Though the uninformed arrogance behind the poor decisions and dismissive attitude to the resulting problems, even when they were impacting RHEL support customers, was very similar in both cases. Had they responded to realising they'd completely broken a bunch of paying customers' primary revenue generating applications by actually trying to do something about it I would have been happy to file the original mistake under "shit happens." As it is, I don't think 'pretty good track record' applies, I'm afraid.