Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Conway Yee would say:
>I have known for quite awhile that RedHat has the bad habit of using
>modified kernel sources in their distribution. Personally, I found
>this quite annoying as I wanted to upgrade the kernel but found that I
>was STUCK with that provided by RedHat since certain patches in the
>kernel source (i.e. RAID) were not found in the * sources.
>While modified kernel sources were annoying, I could live with it.
>Now I find out that they use modified sources for many of their
>packages. This is getting sufficiently annoying that I may want to
>switch all of my computers to alternative sources. Top on the list is
>Debian. Can anyone tell me if they use * source code in
But it's not a critical point from two crucial perspectives:
a) The sources are available;
b) You are encouraged to compile your own kernel yourself.
You'll find that *nobody* uses "*" sources, whether RHAT,
Slackware, SuSE, Debian, or, for that matter, BSD Ports. *All* of
them provide the capability of packages having patches that diverge
from the "pristine" sources.
The real problem here is that RHAT is apparently not doing enough to
contribute patches back to the "official source tree." Or perhaps in
not documenting it clearly enough. They're not the only ones; other
vendors have been known to do similar. [VA comes to mind...]
As a "straight" answer to your question, Debian is probably more
careful in this regard; that being said, I *always* wind up replacing
the installed kernel with one compiled from the official source tree.
(Perhaps with some patches that *I* choose...)
Talk a lot, don't you?