News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The struggles of an open source maintainer by megous on Friday May 17, 2019 @06:04AM (#19938006)
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.
Re:The struggles of an open source maintainer by cyphar on Friday May 17, 2019 @06:26AM (#19938117)
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.