also sprach Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2003.09.21.1906 +0200]: > Why would you have to remove features? I routinely modify my patch packages > to apply to Debian kernel source, and this has never required removing a > feature. Because maybe you are a kernel hacker and have a clue. While I am quite good with C, networking, and operating systems, I am not willing to port grsecurity's changes to the official IP stack to a 2.5 backport. Moreover, I am not really willing to weed through 47 reject files and apply everything by hand. The reason is not that I am lazy, but because I am afraid to be introducing bugs. > > I don't see why we don't provide kernel-source packages that > > feature the normal kernels > > One good reason is that the normal kernels do not meet the DFSG. > Another is that they often contain known security vulnerabilities, > and it would be irresponsible to distribute them that way. I fully agree that security vulnerabilities should be fixed by backport. But not features! Also, please explain: how is the normal kernel not DFSG but a derived version is? -- 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