[gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[jwsacksteder]

I have been using the alpha-sources so far, but they don't seem to be
getting updated past 2.4.21. 

Considering the recent security issues, I want to move up to 2.4.25. It
looks like I'm stuck with vanilla-sources unless someone is planning on
updating alpha-sources soon.

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Jay Maynard]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:25:15PM -0500, jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:
> Considering the recent security issues, I want to move up to 2.4.25. It
> looks like I'm stuck with vanilla-sources unless someone is planning on
> updating alpha-sources soon.

I'm currently working on building a new LiveCD, but once that's done, I'd be
willing to look at this one.

Just what was done to vanilla-sources to get to alpha-sources?

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 01:25:15PM EST]
> I have been using the alpha-sources so far, but they don't seem to be
> getting updated past 2.4.21. 

I believe that it's 2.4.21 + all the recent security issues.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 435 bytes --]

Jay Maynard wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 01:30:49PM EST]
> Just what was done to vanilla-sources to get to alpha-sources?

Lots of patching.  Think of alpha-sources as gentoo-source for alpha.
Cryptographic patches, USAGI, superfreeswan, patch-int, jari, plus all
the security patches.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Marc Giger]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:30:49 -0600
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:25:15PM -0500,
> jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:
> > Considering the recent security issues, I want to move up to 2.4.25.
> > It looks like I'm stuck with vanilla-sources unless someone is
> > planning on updating alpha-sources soon.

alpha-sources-2.4.21-r4 should contain all security patches!

If you don't use ipv6, ipsec etc. you should be fine with
vanilla-sources.

> 
> I'm currently working on building a new LiveCD, but once that's done,
> I'd be willing to look at this one.
> 
> Just what was done to vanilla-sources to get to alpha-sources?

A lot! Some month ago I made a new ebuild for 2.4.23 (search archive),
but it was never picked up and integrated to portage:-(

I'm willing to do the same for 2.4.25 but I'm still waiting for some
updated patches (e.g acl, superfreeswan, USAGI etc).

greets

Marc

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]

Marc Giger wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 02:07:18PM EST]
> A lot! Some month ago I made a new ebuild for 2.4.23 (search archive),
> but it was never picked up and integrated to portage:-(

My fault :-(

> I'm willing to do the same for 2.4.25 but I'm still waiting for some
> updated patches (e.g acl, superfreeswan, USAGI etc).

Coolness, maybe this time I'll get it in! :-)

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Donsbach, Jeff]

Marc,

Help a newbie. ;-) What would be the difference between your 2.4.25
ebuild and the current vanilla sources? I've been running a "vanilla
source" kernel for a few days and it seems fine to me (in my limited use
so far).

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Giger [mailto:gigerstyle@gmx.ch] 

A lot! Some month ago I made a new ebuild for 2.4.23 (search archive),
but it was never picked up and integrated to portage:-(

I'm willing to do the same for 2.4.25 but I'm still waiting for some
updated patches (e.g acl, superfreeswan, USAGI etc).


--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Marc Giger]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:36:24 -0500
Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Marc Giger wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 02:07:18PM EST]
> > A lot! Some month ago I made a new ebuild for 2.4.23 (search
> > archive), but it was never picked up and integrated to portage:-(
> 
> My fault :-(
> 
> > I'm willing to do the same for 2.4.25 but I'm still waiting for some
> > updated patches (e.g acl, superfreeswan, USAGI etc).
> 
> Coolness, maybe this time I'll get it in! :-)

maybe? ;-))

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 291 bytes --]

Marc Giger wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 03:13:48PM EST]
> maybe? ;-))

I'm just hesitant to promise since last time I didn't keep my word :-(

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Marc Giger]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:03:43 -0500
"Donsbach, Jeff" <jeff.donsbach@hp.com> wrote:

> 
> Marc,
> 
> Help a newbie. ;-) What would be the difference between your 2.4.25

Hehe:-) Ok, I will help you if you help me. I saw your e-mail
address and it seems you are working at hp. The source for alpha's!
I need more alphas!:-)) EV67 or newer would be cool. So you send me a
board and a processor (or even better dual) and I will answer your
question*BIG SMILE

> ebuild and the current vanilla sources? I've been running a "vanilla
> source" kernel for a few days and it seems fine to me (in my limited
> use so far).

No kidding! If you are happy with vanilla-source I think you won't
profit from alpha-sources. But it will contain almost the same thing as
alpha-sources 2.4.21:

- xfs (useless with 2.4.25)
- grsecurity
- usagi
- cryptoloop-jari
- superfreeswan
- uac_sysctl
- forgot something?

Where usagi and superfreeswan are exclusive

Additionally I will add acl's (ea+acl+nfsacl) to the tree, because I
think it's also a very useful security feature.

greets

Marc loves his alpha Giger

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Marc Giger]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:22:15 -0500
Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Marc Giger wrote:	[Wed Feb 25 2004, 03:13:48PM EST]
> > maybe? ;-))
> 
> I'm just hesitant to promise since last time I didn't keep my word :-(

It's no problem for me. I should have made a bugzilla entry.

Perhaps it's still interesting for some people to have
alpha-sources-2.4.23 into portage until a newer is out. What do you
think?
The advantage of 2.4.23 is surely Andrea Arcangeli's VM.

Oh, what's with alpha-sources-2.6? I think it would be nice if we
would begin to test the new kernel on alphas and release patches.

Thanks

Marc

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources

[Donsbach, Jeff]

Actually, now that you mention it, I don't think the vanilla sources for
2.4.25 have uac_sysctl. That would be useful. The rest, I don't know.
Didn't notice. And I'm not familiar with some of them.

As far as new hardware goes, stand in line, buddy! :-)

Jeff D

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Giger [mailto:gigerstyle@gmx.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:35 PM
To: gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org; Donsbach, Jeff
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] vanilla-sources vs alpha-sources


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:03:43 -0500
"Donsbach, Jeff" <jeff.donsbach@hp.com> wrote:

> 
> Marc,
> 
> Help a newbie. ;-) What would be the difference between your 2.4.25

Hehe:-) Ok, I will help you if you help me. I saw your e-mail address
and it seems you are working at hp. The source for alpha's! I need more
alphas!:-)) EV67 or newer would be cool. So you send me a board and a
processor (or even better dual) and I will answer your question*BIG
SMILE

> ebuild and the current vanilla sources? I've been running a "vanilla 
> source" kernel for a few days and it seems fine to me (in my limited 
> use so far).

No kidding! If you are happy with vanilla-source I think you won't
profit from alpha-sources. But it will contain almost the same thing as
alpha-sources 2.4.21:

- xfs (useless with 2.4.25)
- grsecurity
- usagi
- cryptoloop-jari
- superfreeswan
- uac_sysctl
- forgot something?

Where usagi and superfreeswan are exclusive

Additionally I will add acl's (ea+acl+nfsacl) to the tree, because I
think it's also a very useful security feature.

greets

Marc loves his alpha Giger

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list