3 ms·

Are there any distros with a strict upstream-only policy?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kashyapc 7y ago
Fedora comes very close. But I'm biased, as a user of (and contributor to) it for about ten years. Don't take my word for it, read the related documentation[1]: "The Fedora Project focuses, as much as possible, on not deviating from upstream in the software it includes in the repository. The following guidelines are a general set of best practices, and provide reasons why this is a good idea, tips for sending your patches upstream, and potential exceptions Fedora might make. The primary goal is to share the benefits of a common codebase for end users and developers while simultaneously reducing unnecessary maintenance efforts." The linked[1] documentation also answers, with specific examples, the question of: "What are deviations from upstream?" [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_pro...
majewsky 7y ago
https://www.archlinux.org/about/ https://www.archlinux.org/about/ > Arch [Linux] strives to keep its packages as close to the original upstream software as possible. Patches are applied only when necessary to ensure an application compiles and runs correctly with the other packages installed on an up-to-date Arch system.
megous 7y ago
I doubt it. It's unreasonable. "Upstream first, patch it if that fails" is good enough. There are widely used packages that did not have release in 5 years and distros have to carry around patches just to make them compile with openssl 1.1, or fix known CVEs, or whatever.
- cyphar 7y ago
  This is the correct answer. Distributions don't apply patches just for the sake of it or because we enjoy it -- it makes packaging more annoying for us when we have to rebase patches each version bump. But sometimes it's necessary and it would be a silly limitation to not allow yourself to patch software which is under a license that explicitly gives you permission to modify it. I would argue any rolling-release or bleeding-edge distribution is pretty much the closest you'll get to "pure upstream". Stable distributions have more patches by necessity, and enterprise distributions even more so.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
Slackware prefers not to make changes to the upstream version.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  Specifically, Slack patches to get software to build, because often software will work for the original developer, but not with a different set of dependencies. Otherwise everything else stays default. I think this is the closest anyone can reasonably get to strict-upstream and still have stable releases.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Fedora comes very close. But I'm biased, as a user of (and contributor to) it for about ten years. Don't take my word for it, read the related documentation[1]: "The Fedora Project focuses, as much as possible, on not deviating from upstream in the software it includes in the repository. The following guidelines are a general set of best practices, and provide reasons why this is a good idea, tips for sending your patches upstream, and potential exceptions Fedora might make. The primary goal is to share the benefits of a common codebase for end users and developers while simultaneously reducing unnecessary maintenance efforts." The linked[1] documentation also answers, with specific examples, the question of: "What are deviations from upstream?" [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_pro...

majewsky 7y ago

https://www.archlinux.org/about/ https://www.archlinux.org/about/ > Arch [Linux] strives to keep its packages as close to the original upstream software as possible. Patches are applied only when necessary to ensure an application compiles and runs correctly with the other packages installed on an up-to-date Arch system.

megous 7y ago

I doubt it. It's unreasonable. "Upstream first, patch it if that fails" is good enough. There are widely used packages that did not have release in 5 years and distros have to carry around patches just to make them compile with openssl 1.1, or fix known CVEs, or whatever.

cyphar 7y ago
This is the correct answer. Distributions don't apply patches just for the sake of it or because we enjoy it -- it makes packaging more annoying for us when we have to rebase patches each version bump. But sometimes it's necessary and it would be a silly limitation to not allow yourself to patch software which is under a license that explicitly gives you permission to modify it. I would argue any rolling-release or bleeding-edge distribution is pretty much the closest you'll get to "pure upstream". Stable distributions have more patches by necessity, and enterprise distributions even more so.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

Slackware prefers not to make changes to the upstream version.

peterwwillis 7y ago
Specifically, Slack patches to get software to build, because often software will work for the original developer, but not with a different set of dependencies. Otherwise everything else stays default. I think this is the closest anyone can reasonably get to strict-upstream and still have stable releases.