Comment by latchup

2 days ago

Well, there are big differences in how aggressively things are patched. Arch Linux makes a point to strictly minimize patches and avoid them entirely whenever possible. That's a good thing, because otherwise, nonsense like the Xscreensaver situation ensues, where the original developers aggressively reject distro packages for mutilating their work and/or forcing old and buggy versions on unsuspecting users.

> nonsense like the Xscreensaver situation ensues, where the original developers aggressively reject distro packages

I didn't know about this. Link?

Huh? I contribute to Debian; I don't aggressively patch anything. You can too.

  • It's "let's patch as little as possible" vs "let's enforce our rules with the smallest patch possible"

  • Well good for you. Then I suppose you don't speak for the Debian maintainers responsible for trainwrecks like this:

    https://research.swtch.com/openssl

    There seems to be a serious issue with Debian (and by extension, the tens of distros based on it) having no respect whatsoever for the developers of the software their OS is based on, which ends up hurting users the most. Not sure why they cannot just be respectful, but I am afraid they are shoveling Debian's grave, as people are abandoning stale and broken Debian-based distros in droves.