Re: Security Supporting Debian Kernels in Sarge
* Matt Zimmerman (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040424 02:55]:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:25:22PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:01:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > > I see only one way to deal with that: drop security support for
> > > > m68k. :-P
> > >
> > > That's not entirely unreasonable. Why should the m68k folks expect
> > > the security team to maintan 2.2 when they are not willing to put in
> > > the effort needd to make 2.6 run on their arch?
> > Why not get a designated person from the m68k port to compile and test
> > new kernel security updates. Is there some reason this is not possible
> > or a good idea? Or is this already done?
> The problem is not with compilation or testing, but with actually keeping
> the code up-to-date with bugfixes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that this task is easier
if the code is only for one m68k-subarch, and you can e.g. drop all
problems in i386-specific code, and also don't have extra
kernel-patches to apply (because all needed patches are actually in
the one source package applied).
Of course, this is still a task which needs much attention.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C