[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel-patch questions



> > I seem to recall you asked for the 2.2.14 source when the boot-floppies
> > build was up. I asked Andrew but I think I never got the source either
> > (it's on the Mac CVS but I could not bother to figure out where that was
> > and how to use it that particular week), and the Mac kernel I built seemed
> > fine for installs, plus theb 2.2.14 kernels had some issues so I didn't
> > follow up on that. 
> I thought it might be good to try building that on amiga, if you had
> insisted on using that as the install kernel. BTW, is anybody working on

I don't insist on anything, I won't use that kernel myself and as far as I
recall no one complained about the latest 2.2.10 kernel (I foolproofed the
SCSI driver parameters as far as possible and kicked out the broken 6x11
video driver so there's not much more I can do). 

> 2.2.16 (I know its off topic here)? There were some big security issues and
> the release manager wanted to know which kernel version we were using for the
> boot-floppies...

Just for a laugh, get the release manager to talk to Jes about this. There
was a security issue with sendmail and if the release manager considers
that critical he better allow the new sendmail into the distribution.
sendmail will refuse to start up if it encounters that kernel bug so
there's no sendmail vulnerability anymore. I hope there's none in sshd,
and X is inherently insecure anyway. Telnet/FTP are disabled so what's
left? 
I don't see Jes working on 2.2.x before the release is over, I don't see
anyone of the m68k maintainers do it, and I don't count on the people
doing most 2.2.x work currently (Mac CVS) to migrate to 2.2.16, test that
on Mac, build a new Debian 2.2.16 kernel patch for m68k and somehow get
that to us for submission to potato. 

Summary: I don't see this happen, and I think it's a non issue anyway. 
 
> > BTW there's another variable in the equation just to complete the
> > confusion: the Debian patches for 2.2.10 which contain part of the 2.2.10
> > Mac stuff plus FPU emulation at least. 
> Oh, cool. I usually prefer a source, where I do not have to apply any
> patches. Is there any chance to get an up-to-date kernel source somewhere
> with all patches included? Or maybe nearly all... I don't dare to start from
> a fresh 2.2.10 source + patches either... might cost a little space, but
> saves large amounts of time for everybody.

Read my lips: official Debian m68k kernel patch by Nick Holgate. If you're
playing nicely along with policy and whatnot, the idea to use anything but
the official kernel source and official kernel patch package together with
the official C compiler will never even begin to cross your mind. Wait ...
official C compiler ... I think I can see a problem there. Never mind,
you'd not do that anyway so you're stuck with hacks. 

All I can offer is a patch from 2.2.10-linus to my 2.2.10-mac68k but I'm
sure that won't cover all of Nick's changes and you're better off with the
debian patch set Nick made. Maybe someone throw in the setcap patch that
went into 2.2.16. Volunteers, anyone?

	Michael



Reply to: