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

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

also sprach Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> [2003.09.22.1155 +0200]:
> And if you meant the kernel-source package, then please think
> twice before you request a such thing. Your "idea" would require
> dozens of versions of kernel-source-NUMBER-foo every time when
> I a small fix had to be applied.

Why? No, it would require one kernel-source package which installs
the kernel source, not the Debian-modified kernel source.

> Reality check please. grsec modifies the kernel so heavily that it
> will ALWAYS conflict with something when you modify the kernel
> a bit more that with trivial bugfixes.

Yeah, but that something I can work around. I am not willing to port
grsec to a new IP stack or other new features. There is your reality

> The same would happen if it conflicts with ANY of the 93
> kernel-patches in the archive - there is no reason for rants on
> -devel.

I am not arguing this.

> > significantly modified; why aren't those modifications
> > distributed as seperate kernel patches / debian packages in the
> > same way grsec is?
> Martin can _simply_ create an alternative "apply" script which
> unpatches the Debian source when needed before applying the grsec
> patch. Quiet, transparent solution.

So then what happens if a user falsely employs the Debian 2.4 kernel
feature "IPsec" and one day decides to use GRsecurity?

This is a bad suggestion.

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: pgpEXJjDz0Vy9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: