Sometimes the issue is marked as fixed but a new version won't be coming out for months and you're simply told to compile it yourself only to find it has literally hundreds of carefully tuned compilation dependencies and environment specific settings that aren't documented.
Open source has no tangible effect on release schedules?
If the software in question was proprietary you wouldn't even have that option. Distro packages could backport that fix too.
Conversely: The new version requires you write it with a different word that makes more sense, so you do an search and replace in a few files and get done with it and nothing breaks.
I would say finding that the bug is in a library is worse than finding it in your own code.
If it's your own code, you just fix it.
If it's in a library you then have to go and search for issues. If there isn't one, you then go and spend time making one and potentially preparing a minimum reproducible example. Or if you don't do that (or it's just unmaintained) then you have to consider downgrading to a version that doesn't have the bug and potentially losing functionality, or even switching to another library entirely and consequently rewriting all your code that used the old one to work with the new one.
Yeah, I'd take my own bugs over library bugs any day.
Worse is if there is one but it says: [OPEN] Opened 7 years ago Updated 2 days ago, with a whole bunch of people commenting the equivalent of "me too", and various things they tried to solve it, but no solution.
Sometimes I feel slightly robbed when this happens. Like damn I was just gearing up for a marathon troubleshooting session and now I just get to use the software as intended?