On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:43:27PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > > > Thanks, but the latest patch on lsm.immunix.org is against 2.4.8, which > > existed for less time than other concerns allowed me to "capture". > > > > To reword my request, could we get a patch against 2.4.9? Just for > > "hahas"? Or, if there's an hour or two delay, against the head of the > > current stable linux release at www.kernel.org? (sorry, I get frustrated > > by how fast the kernel people upgrade, but following LSM makes it even > > more frustrating.) > > Wow, 2.4.9 has been out for what, 2 hours? I've had the merge checked > in for what 1 hour? Can't you wait a bit for me to generate the patch? > :) > > I do want to try to test the thing... :) well, actually, no. Not for an optional/branch patch that will be considered for inclusion. If I don't have access to it, I am shut out, and by the time I get to look at it... it's relegated to history. I think the "major patches" are a good idea, but when something like this is proposed, I want to look closely before the result is moot. > > > The head of the list is a wonderful place, but not accessable to me (not > > going there.) I *do* have access to the most recent kernel release, and > > if a patch against that could be made "standard", it would help > > considerably. > > What do you mean "standard". Is the current patch situation not working > for you? If you're subscribed to the lsm-commit mailing list, all the > different commits get sent there as patches so you can keep your tree up > to date without having to use bitkeeper. Isn't that enough? Sorry, I haven't subscribed there. I will so do (if possible). What I suggest is that any major patch should be against the most recent standard kernel release, not the bitkeeper tree, if it is to be carefully considered by everyone on the list. Merely a minor point. > > And I thought we said we wouldn't be releasing patches against the -pre > kernels unless something warrants it. So forward porting for every -pre > release would be a lot more work than other people were willing to put > up with. Is that a problem? I don't ask for that, at all. Patching against pre releases is useful, but not "change safe". I'd rather see all patches be transmuted to be against the latest kernel.org kernel release... FOR NOW. We can run a kernel tree and not have to incrementally patch it on a daily basis. On another, only remotely related topic, it would be nice if we had a "friday patch" against the last kernel.org released kernel, even if it was not an "official working release" and a few days notice before closing a "general" release... would help me in scheduling my manpower. > > greg k-h > J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 16 2001 - 16:15:58 PDT