Which Linux distributions are the developers of glibc using?

[james harvey]

... I get that Fedora has apparently done things so
distribution-specific patches are necessary because without them
there's so many failures.  I'm more referring to why they keep bug
fixes that could be applied to vanilla in their distro-patches...
There were some I ran across in Fedora's patches like this, and sounds
like from you guys there are some in Gentoo/2.21.

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:37 AM, james harvey <jamespharvey20@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fedora 22:
>
> glibc-2.21-5.fc22.x86_64.rpm only has 5 test failures.
> (elf/tst-audit2, rtkaio/tst-{cancel17, cancelx17, mqueue8, mqueue8x)
> glibc git # 3ed0151 (5/28/2015) has 184 test failures, and bricked my
> system.  (In a VM, snapshotted before I did it.)
> Merging the two (conflicts weren't too horrible) has 6 failures.
> (elf/tst-audit2 now passes, elf/tst-protected1{a, b} now fail, rtkaio
> has the same 4 failures)
>
> I don't get it.  Why are distributions applying bug fixes to packages
> on their own, rather than submitting them upstream, to the actual
> project?
>
> So, do people who run glibc git master, such as the primary glibc
> developers, install vanilla glibc and get away with whatever
> arch/gentoo would have added?  Or, do they merge in their
> distribution's bugfixes?
>
>> Gentoo, like every distro, has its own patchset on top of glibc.  i can't speak
>> to specifics in Redhat/Fedora, but the Gentoo patchset are largely bug fixes.
>> i glanced through them (they're in git under gentoo/2.21) and i can't see any
>> that would cause your system to fail if you used vanilla glibc.  of course, if
>> you needed one of those build fixes (like some of the arch updates), then it's
>> to be expected that vanilla glibc also won't work :).  but that largely applies
>> to arches like hppa.
>> -mike