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

Re: To what extent should Debian modify the kernel? (Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!)



also sprach Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.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 <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: pgpe1gIrdHhpd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: