it's waaay simpler than that. Some projects have established rules, and kent doesn't want to follow them. It doesn't matter how nice (or not) he is.

▲

bornfreddy 4 days ago | parent [-]

I actually like the idea of the maintainer going out of his way to make sure that my filesystem is safe to use. Even if it goes against the established rules. And I'm saying that as someone who actually likes both Linux and Debian.

▲

rwmj 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's a strawman to imagine that Debian doesn't have a way to ensure filesystems are safe and to respond to critical bugs that might cause data corruption. It's just that you have to follow their rules to do it. (And broadly the same rules apply to the other big distros as well).

	▲	rcxdude 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And the rules demonstrably create situations where it's easy to introduce bugs or hard to fix them, because they prioritise stability and a consistent set of package versions over the version that the upstream developer has tested. Followed blindly (and without putting in the effort to test to the same level of rigor as upstream), this causes problems, and it's right to point those out. Debian's ways would involve the package maintainer putting in a lot more effort to marry their rules with a package that actually worked, and they were not up for that. (Debian's rules aren't worthless, it's part of how they can make something that's pretty suitable for 'boring infrastructure' systems because they can keep a system with a known and stable set of behavior up to date with critical security fixes for a long time, but boy do they result in some dumb situations sometimes)