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

Re: Upload of linux-grsec to jessie-backports?



On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:

> On ven., 2016-01-08 at 12:44 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> > Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi list, [please keep me on CC: on replies, I'm not subscribed to the
> > > list]
> > > 
> > > linux-grsec was recently ACCEPTED [1] in Debian unstable. For the record,
> > > it's
> > > a src:linux packages patched with the grsecurity [2] patch, hardening the
> > > kernel against various threats (memory corruption especially).
> > > 
> > > Current upstream (grsecurity) development model is to follow the latest
> > > linux
> > > kernel version (there are so-called “stable” patches, which are not
> > > available
> > > free of charge, so I don't mention them here), which makes it not really
> > > suitable for a stable release (also there's the duplication of the Linux
> > > sources).
> > > 
> > > But the linux-grsec packages might especially interest people using stable
> > > releases (it's really useful on servers, although I'm using it on laptops
> > > and
> > > desktops just fine), so I'm currently providing those builds myself [3].
> > > I'd
> > > like to use a more official repository, so I thought about uploading to
> > > jessie-backports.
> > > 
> > > I know the rules about backports (only packages already in testing, suited
> > > for
> > > the next stable releases), so I know it's an exception I'm asking. I
> > > already
> > > asked on IRC (#debian-devel, where it wasn't really warmly received :),
> > > but
> > > was also redirected here, so it gets archived.
> > I for one would love this kernel package available in backports!
> > 
> 
> I asked the release team about their opinion on having linux-grsec appearing
> in a stable release. The answer is at [1] but it basically boils down to
> “we're not thrilled, and we think something like backports would be better
> fitted right now”.
> 
> So, is there something I can do to move forward on this?
As I already said, move it to testing. Make sure it won't get into next
stable and I am fine with backports for grsec. But I/we don't want packages
that are in unstable only.

Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: