> I would rather something not be packaged at all than packaged badly; this whole experience reads like a lesson in what not to do. You might consider adding a

> I would rather something not be packaged at all than packaged badly; this whole experience reads like a lesson in what not to do. You might consider adding a big warning on your official documentation about unsupported distribution packages. Add links to relevant issue tracker/bug reports or mailing list discussions saying until So and so issue are resolved, the official statement is that distribution package is unsupported, not recommended and deemed dangerous to use. This is as much leverage as you can have with the distribution community. Then wait for them to upstream patches and attempt to fix the issues. Accept fixes as you consider appropriate or not. It's also important to at least respect the distribution's opinions in regards to having only one version of a library's major release . Just respect and understanding, you don't have to agree. Also, all the problematic libs cited by the packager are 0.x.x numbered which sounds like a very young and immature ecosystem of dependencies. Of course, this is bound to cause pain to packagers. I think this speaks volumes about the high level of interest for bcachefs, that they actually tried to make it work instead of not bothering.