(In reply to mjl from comment #3) > It looks like I'm getting confused by version numbers, and this is all known and being worked on. Sorry for the noise. For reference, the debian bugreport appears to be https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1029594 The problem is that package maintainers don't understand that they can't just build untested things. We release builds after they've been tested internally, and they never wait for that. So they push out known-broken builds to their users. The correct, actually released 2nd build of 102.7.1 was not built until Jan 31, and not released until Feb 01. Any builds that originated prior to those dates are almost certainly bad.
Bug 1814536 Comment 4 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to mjl from comment #3) > It looks like I'm getting confused by version numbers, and this is all known and being worked on. Sorry for the noise. For reference, the debian bugreport appears to be https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1029594 The problem is that package maintainers don't understand that they can't just build untested things. We release builds after they've been tested internally, and they never wait for that. So they push out known-broken builds to their users. The correct, actually released 2nd build of 102.7.1 was not built until Jan 31, and not released until Feb 01. Any builds that originated prior to those dates are almost certainly bad. (if I sound a little exasperated that's because we've gotten MANY incorrect/misleading reports due to this in the past 2 days :/)