also sprach Herbert Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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 <email@example.com> : :' : 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!
Description: PGP signature