[pseudony]

Aside from there being no crises, rewriting a set of utilities with nearly no bug reports for years and for which no new features is needed accomplishes what exactly? Aside from new bugs, that is.

There surely would be a more beneficial undertaking somewhere else. If then you’d argue that they may do as they please with their time, fair, but then let’s not pretend this rewrite has any objective value aside from scratching personal itches and learning how cat and co are implemented.

[steveklabnik]

This effort has produced new bug reports and test cases for upstream, clarifying their desired behavior. That's one positive side effect that helps everyone.

[ok123456]

That's a really post-hoc rationalization for breaking Ubuntu.

[steveklabnik]

I'm replying to the general case of why. Obviously breakage is unfortunate. But it's not like there's no benefit.

[ok123456]

Unfortunately, this will leave a stink that will take a lot of bathing and deodorant to mask.

[selfmodruntime]

Thanks steve. Sometimes there is no satisfying people.

[selfmodruntime]

Finding critical bugs is always worth it. This didn't "break" Ubuntu, it was just a hiccup.

[ok123456]

The critical bugs were introduced by replacing working software. And this is just the beginning of finding all the bugs introduced.

It wasn't "worth it" at all.

[selfmodruntime]

I recommend that you look into the bug trackers of the original tools. There were a lot of bug reports that came from reimplementing these tools. It's also not a replacement - at all. You and distro managers can choose not to use them.