[proctor]

this strongly reminds me of the hn post from five days back in which the main thread talked at some length about a very similar scenario

> "He missed a big one: you have no way to stop Linux distributions from hacking up your software, and you'll suffer the consequences of whatever they do."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935648

[chubot]

Yeah I thought of the same comment. That is unfortunate.

Maybe Debian is more respectful since it's open source not backed by a company with enterprise customers?

[raverbashing]

"respectful" as in let's wait years for a maintainer to come up with a solution and when we try to propose our own the maintainer trows a fit and turns it down?

[dagwieers]

Is that what happened? I remember it differently...

[mattdm]

Eh. Although we don't always do things perfectly, Fedora has a pretty strong policy of working with upstreams first.

By contrast in my personal experience as a developer of something that got packaged in Debian, I discovered later that that package had a bunch of patches added, a man page written (!) and so on, none of which was bad, but also none of which was fed back to me at all.

(In case not obvious: I work for Red Hat on Fedora.)

[bonzini]

Not really, remember the ssh key fiasco which was also due to a Debian-only patch.

(Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat)