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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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.
10 matches
Mail list logo