On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:05:01 +0000, Carsten Mattner wrote: >In the past there have been just crashes or buggy behavior that >only got fixed with the version-next++ and until then arch had >to live with the broken and regressed version as the default >since there wasn't a revoke/downgrade via the index. Since >you can downgrade manually, the index ought to have mechanism >for this too. Hope this makes sense. There already were "local is newer than" packages by official repositories, IOW a new version of a package was provided by an update and later an older version was provided. I don't remember an example, but it definitively already happened. However, those concerns about Arch's health are grotesque. Please open a new thread for the ffmpeg topic and post the links to the upstream bug report and to the Arch bug report. If you want to avoid that others experience the same issue, this is the way to go. On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:12 +0100, Mauro Santos via arch-general wrote: >If you've reported the bug both upstream and in arch's bug tracker and >it turns out it really is a nasty bug it will most probably either get >a downgrade or will be patched quickly (after upstream fixes it). At least upstream would fix it. Bugs are something normal, even bugs that require to restore data from backups, because the original data gets corrupted. Sometimes software upgrades require to convert data for usage with the new software version, so even when downgrading the software, the data needs to be restored from a backup. Hiccups aren't something that serious as Heartbleed was. Even if _one_ bug should be very dangerous, it wouldn't make sense to add a new revoke/downgrade feature, just for a single bug.
