On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 13:23 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Hi Ben! > > Could you please chime in to bug #901134 (RFS: anbox-modules)? > > > > This package wants to ship redundant copies of two modules (ashmem and > > binder) that are already in mainline since a long time ago. This strikes me > > as thoroughly wrong, yet I'm very ignorant about packaged kernels, thus I > > can't offer good advice. > > I agree, I don't think it makes much sense to build these OOT if they > can be built in-tree. > Here goes the bug #901492 (linux: Please enable Android ashmem and binder module) > The in-tree version of ashmem *cannot* be built as a module, though, > which we would probably want to change. > Don't have knowledge about this, but I'd like to see it built as module.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature