On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:08:39AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran it through diffstat, and removed the files which are created entirely
by
the patch, so these are the changes to common code:
I've had a look and it appears to be acceptable.
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran it through diffstat, and removed the files which are created entirely by
the patch, so these are the changes to common code:
I've had a look and it appears to be acceptable. Please file a bug
report against kernel and I'll probably include it
David Z Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...do you include *everything* that comes by you that meets these
criteria? Because from this it sounds like anything that has an
upstream that can be built as modules would be included. My
particular directed thought right now is a somewhat invasive
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, these are very minimal criteria, and I think that probably many of the
kernel-patch packages in Debian would fit them. Where would you draw the
line?
Most of them fail the maintainence check.
Unless the patch is clearly going to be merged
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:08:07AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I currently patch my kernels with device-mapper, a few evms-related patches
and skas3. It would be very convenient if device-mapper and the evms
patches could be included in the the stock
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian kernel source,
rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or such).
Well the reason for it to be in the default kernel-source is simple:
The patch should be used on all default Debian
Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian
kernel source, rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or
such).
Well the reason for it to be in the default kernel-source is simple:
The
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:30:28PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian kernel source,
rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or such).
Well the reason for it to be in the default
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:41:41PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
I've got a few points for you:
* The vanilla kernel source is readily available:
apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.22 kernel-patch-debian-2.4.22
tar xjf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.22.tar.bz2
cd kernel-source-2.4.22
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:54:15PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
I run vanilla sources anyhow, so I am not too concerned as a user. But as
a maintainer of a kernel patch, I am not willing to modify the source to
make it fit the inofficial kernel Debian provides. If I were to do so, I'd
have
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1906 +0200]:
Why would you have to remove features? I routinely modify my patch packages
to apply to Debian kernel source, and this has never required removing a
feature.
Because maybe you are a kernel hacker and have a clue. While I am
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1857 +0200]:
So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian
kernel source, rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or
such).
Thanks, this is indeed the right questions.
And so is this:
I suppose the more
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:11:29PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Why would you have to remove features? I routinely modify my patch packages
to apply to Debian kernel source, and this has never required removing a
feature.
Because maybe you are a kernel hacker and have a clue. While I am
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:11:29PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Also, please explain: how is the normal kernel not DFSG but
a derived version is?
See the bottom of /usr/share/doc/kernel-source-2.4.22/README.Debian.gz
--
- mdz
also sprach Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.2301 +0200]:
So you're maintaining a kernelpatch for debian that has sever security
implication but you don't know enough about it and the code it touches
to do some forward porting?
I know enough about it; I don't (yet) know enough
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:01:51PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Debian seems to have problems with certain firmware images. Note that the
way it's removed in kernel-source is rather useless to meet DFSG as it's
a) still in the orig.tar.gz and b) many of the arch kernel patches back
out
16 matches
Mail list logo
