4 ms·
> What's worse in the case of Debian and other distros is that they have no incentive to coordinate their patches with upstream. They do have an incentive: pat
by avian 10y ago
> What's worse in the case of Debian and other distros is that they have no incentive to coordinate their patches with upstream.
They do have an incentive: patches against upstream need to be maintained. Maintainer has much less work if any patches are included upstream.
I can't speak for other distros, but in my experience many Debian maintainers will strongly oppose including distro-specific patches in their packages without a very good reason.
- vog 10y ago> They do have an incentive: patches against upstream need to be maintained You are right. However, this only means they have an incentive to push patches to upstream _in hindsight_. That's is better than nothing, but still happens after the fact, when the damage is done and the defect distributed to the users. As far as I know, they have no incentive to _wait_ for their patches to be included in upstream. > many [...] maintainers will strongly oppose including distro-specific patches in their packages without a very good reason. Well, fixing security issues is often seen as a "very good reason", completely ignoring that an incomplete and/or errorneous security fix may do more harm than good, and meanwhile provides the users with a false sense of security.