Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)

[smurfd <smurfd@smurfnet.homelinux.net>]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 22:42, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:31, smurfd <smurfd@smurfnet.homelinux.net> wrote:
> > > Also note that GRSecurity conflicts with many other kernel patches, so
> > > including it in the standard kernel source will be unpopular with the
> > > maintainers of most other kernel patches.
> >
> > Well.. thats a big drawback, that the patches conflict with each other.
> > But, its because they try to patch the kernel on same places, and then
> > the patch recognises, that there is not the original code, right? .
> 
> Right.  Also it's not just that the patch utility can't find the context, it's 
> that variables are renamed, new functions are added, and the code just has to 
> be changed to match.
>
> > Im not sure if i know how/what to do, though.
> > i mean, patching a kernel, and packaging it... wouldnt be, too hard i
> > guess.. but solving those kernel-patch-conflicts.. i dont know how to
> > do.
> 
> You just need to be a really good C programmer and have a few hours to spare 
> every time a new kernel is released.

okidoki. Seems like alot of work though.

Well im throwing up a chroot as we speak, so that i will probably look
into the work at hand in this weekend or so.. and will get back to see
if im capable or not..

Hmm.. when i come to think about it, its "basicly", "just" merge:ing the
diff files for 2 (or more patches)

Though, the patches that is spoken about is HUGE.

Well we will se..

Best regards
-- 
smurfd <smurfd@smurfnet.homelinux.net>
aka Nicklas Boman