also sprach Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.10.03.0121 +0200]: > I have given you the reason for this many times already. Please > reread the thread on debian-devel carefully.
This one post did in fact slip my eyes. In it, you mention some
checks when it comes to patch inclusion.
I have a particular problem with:
* If it's a feature, can it be disabled/enabled at runtime?
Sinec we're making generic kernels, this is a must. The presence
of the patch should not prevent me from doing something that I would
otherwise be able to do.
I cannot disable IPsec at runtime as I cannot replace the IP stack
at runtime, and it modifies the IP stack. Moreover, you state the
reason why you should not put IPsec in the kernel right there: "The
presence of the patch should not prevent me from doing something
that I would otherwise be able to do." Well, it does.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
pgpj2vhMdpnhL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
