* Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Grsecurity Poll
@ 2003-08-07 13:13 99% ` Markus Nigbur
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Markus Nigbur @ 2003-08-07 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:02:03 -0400
Michael Cummings <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:46:46AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 18:48, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > Comments, suggestions and feedback are welcome.
> >
> Perhaps a silly question, but why are patches rolled as their own kernels at
> all? Seems to my little brain (yes, it's real small when it comes to these
> matters) that it would almost make more sense to offer the vanilla kernel as
> is, then have each of these (currently their own ebuilds) patches as add on
> ebuilds, such as emerge vanillia-kernel, emerge grsecurity-patch, emerge
> nvidia-patch, etc. After all, it's not like the ebuild for the kernel
> compiles it in the first place, and as far as I know these patches
> add/replace to the existing structure, right? Just a random thought, feel
> free to ignore :)
we had a discussion about this on bugzilla with ck-sources 2.4.21.
it would be nice to introduce some local flags for the kernel patches.
Bug #22822
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2003-08-06 22:48 [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Grsecurity Poll Ned Ludd
2003-08-07 12:46 ` Chris Gianelloni
2003-08-07 13:02 ` Michael Cummings
2003-08-07 13:13 99% ` Markus Nigbur
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox