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
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is faster and wiser to fix your kernel-source-2.4.22 (unpatch is useless,
leave to users to patch if they want) then all other kernel-patch-whatever
packages will be fine.
It is unacceptable for us to distribute kernels with known (security) bugs.
On Monday 22 September 2003 14:20, Matthew Garrett wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2003.09.21.1=
614 +0200]:
Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development
code?
It always depends, doesn't it? We are backporting
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 04:04:22PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/
pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and
kernel-patch-whatever ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the
situation
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
George Danchev wrote:
Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/
pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and
kernel-patch-whatever ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the
situation has been changed...
Nonsense. As a trivial
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:09:08PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
I am the kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity maintainer, and I have been
flooded with grave and important bugs ever since kernel version
2.4.20, since grsecurity does not apply to these kernel versions
anymore. It doesn't apply to the
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-21 14:44]:
What you distribute as 2.4.22 is not 2.4.22.
So what? Most packages in Debian devate from upstream in one way or
another. That's the added value we provide. I'm happy that Herbert
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
They are - look at the last part of the kernel-image-KVERS image. And if
you meant the kernel-source package, then please think twice before you
request a such thing. Your idea would require dozens of versions of
kernel-source-NUMBER-foo every time
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Martin Pitt wrote:
When Debian claims to ship kernels with security patches, then another
Debian package should not silently remove them; that would be very
dangerous (and IMHO silly). I could live with this solution if such an
unpatch is verbosely announced to the user
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 16:41]:
Bad analogy. Consider the way that the Harry Potter books have been modified
for the limited vocabulary of the American audience.
I hope that you're joking. (Well, I fear that you're not.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
also sprach Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1614 +0200]:
FWIW, I basically agree. goodies are welcome, but backporting
things from the unstable branch migh= t not be that good idea.
Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development
code?
It always depends,
also sprach Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1644 +0200]:
This is very standard practice for distribution kernels. It's
fairly rare for users to notice negative effects and the positive
effects (better hardware support, more features, better
performance or what have we) are generally
also sprach Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.09.21.1647 +0200]:
which features should be removed from grsec in order to make it
patch the debian kernel?
IP randomisation, and there might well me more. This is where
I stopped.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read
Andi writes:
I hope that you're joking. (Well, I fear that you're not.)
It's not the American audience that has the limited vocabulary. It's the
American publisher.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bad analogy. Consider the way that the Harry Potter books have been
modified for the limited vocabulary of the American audience.
Ha, the Australians want American kids to read sentences like Fred
and I managed to keep our peckers up somehow. (In the
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:07:18AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Bad analogy. Consider the way that the Harry Potter books have been modified
for the limited vocabulary of the American audience.
You mean they were even worse before they were published in the US? Hard
to believe.
--
Marc
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
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:07:18AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Also there's the issue of whether we should try to have one kernel source
tree that everything applies to. I think that perhaps we should have
options as to which tree things apply to. So we can have kernel patches
to apply
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:44:59PM -0400, Lukas Geyer wrote:
Ha, the Australians want American kids to read sentences like Fred
and I managed to keep our peckers up somehow.
At least from puberty until middle age, that doesn't seem too impressive
a feat for most males...
--
G. Branden
I have been following the discussion and just want to add some things
from a user's point of view:
1.
I appreciate the additional functionality and included bug fixes of the
Debian kernels, but in the end I often have to use the vanilla kernel,
because most patches - like grsecurity - don't apply
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:09:55PM +0200, Sebastian wrote:
Thus, while I really like the stability of woody, I frequently need
kernel updates. This means that the kernel packages don't really fit into
Debian's concept of stable and unstable.
Debian's concept of stable and unstable applies
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-21 14:44]:
What you distribute as 2.4.22 is not 2.4.22.
So what? Most packages in Debian devate from upstream in one way or
another. That's the added value we provide. I'm happy that Herbert
carefully selects what to backport
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
HI,
I have no issue how you ship debian kernel :-)
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:
good.
apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.22 kernel-patch-debian-2.4.22
tar xjf
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
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
