Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
A package destroying people's hardware shouldn't be there in
the first
place, because it should have stayed in testing for an extended period
of time. Thus this is not a valid reason, as the other ones that were
brought up were not.
What if nobody with that hardware was using updates-testing? Then it'll only
get noticed once it's stable and starts breaking hardware there. Or even, it
might only come to Fedora's attention due to a warning from upstream, which
may come in at any time.
But it is maintainer's fault to push an update to stable that
would
*possibly* destroy people's hardware.
He just can't know. Testing is not a magic bullet and testers will not have
every piece of hardware ever produced.
Standardization, my friend, helps you in many aspects of life.
What you call "standardization", I call "inflexible bureaucracy".
Indeed some changes are trivial. But if a trivial change is really
necessary, it could be done while the package is still in testing. If
you need one liner fix for an already tested package that has been in
stable for long time, then that fix is apparently not urgent.
It may be a regression which was missed by the people in testing, maybe they
didn't use the affected feature, maybe they don't have the affected
hardware, maybe the intersection of updates-testing users and users of that
particular package is even just empty. Updates-testing is not a silver
bullet.
Please don't skip the fact that fixes themselves might be broken
too,
even the most trivial ones.
The more trivial the fix, the less likely this is.
Kevin Kofler