Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Kurt Garloff
Hi Serge, On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:37:21AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Kurt Garloff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Getting rid of dummy entirely would be better, I agree, but someone > > needs to review that this won't break anything. > > Unfortunately I think it's way too soon for

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread serge
Hey, Quoting Kurt Garloff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Getting rid of dummy entirely would be better, I agree, but someone > needs to review that this won't break anything. Unfortunately I think it's way too soon for that. Even if stacker is accepted, it is still a module (for now at least) which can

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Kurt Garloff
Hi Serge, On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:01:05AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > > > > > The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there > > > > last week, in the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread serge
Quoting Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > > > The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there > > > last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both > > > cases would be needed. > > > > Both

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Tony Jones
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there > > last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both > > cases would be needed. > > Both cases? CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER and

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Tony Jones
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both cases would be needed. Both cases? CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER and !CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread serge
Quoting Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both cases would be needed. Both cases?

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Kurt Garloff
Hi Serge, On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:01:05AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there last week, in the context of stacker,

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread serge
Hey, Quoting Kurt Garloff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Getting rid of dummy entirely would be better, I agree, but someone needs to review that this won't break anything. Unfortunately I think it's way too soon for that. Even if stacker is accepted, it is still a module (for now at least) which can

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional

2005-07-04 Thread Kurt Garloff
Hi Serge, On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:37:21AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Kurt Garloff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Getting rid of dummy entirely would be better, I agree, but someone needs to review that this won't break anything. Unfortunately I think it's way too soon for that.