Re: exec-shield (maybe ITP kernel-patch-exec-shield)
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:41, Peter Busser <email@example.com> wrote:
> You are absolutely right on this, I am not interested in maintaining such a
> patch package. Would you maintain a patch package when you can already
> apt-get install working kernel-images with everything you need, including
> PaX? I don't think so.
> It would be somewhat beneficial for Adamantix if PaX was part of the
> default Debian kernel source. Inclusion of PaX in the default Debian kernel
> source could be a valid reason to cooperate with Debian on this. You didn't
> ask me about such a scenario.
As long as no-one is interested in making kernel-patch packages for PaX the
chances of getting it in the default Debian kernel source is exceedingly low.
It's your choice, you can do some work to advance your goals, or complain
because other people aren't doing the work for you. Complaining usually
doesn't make things happen.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page