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

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

also sprach Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> [2003.09.21.1341 +0200]:
> * The vanilla kernel source is readily available:

I don't consider this readily available. It's faster to just
download it from kernel.org.

Plus: why do you make the backport default? Shouldn't users have the
choice to apply the patch if they wish, rather than those that don't
want it having to unpatch?

> * The IPSEC backport can be easily reversed by unapplying the
> patches given in the README.Debian file.

What you distribute as 2.4.22 is not 2.4.22. I don't care that it
can be made to be 2.4.22, it is not. I think you should therefore
either change the name of kernel-source modules that don't contain
the promised version, or apply the patches on demand only.

I don't buy a book just to find that every third page is different.
A note "we thought you might want the changed pages. if you don't,
please remove them and put the loose ones in the package into their
place" doesn't help that.

> * The IPSEC backport has minimal effect on the binary images.  It
> has no effect unless you load the relevant modules.  The increase
> in size is tiny compared to the increases brought on by ACPI and
> compiler changes.  

I don't care about the binary packages. I care about the fact that

  - it prevents grsecurity
  - it prevents freeswan
  - it is not the kernel it promises to be.

Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

Attachment: pgpQmkVCQ5AmB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: