Re: Reasons for Inclusion

Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
In reply to: jmjonesat_private: "Reasons for Inclusion"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Reply: Russell Coker: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Valdis.Kletnieksat_private

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:45:44 EST, jmjonesat_private  said:

> "
> Since secure-systems are a minority of installed systems, and the LSM code
> works exceptionally well with a common-patch, why should this patch enter
> into the "official" code tree for Linux and not simply track it as a
> shared resource for secure-system developers, developed outside the 'stock
> kernel' tree?
> "

s/secure-systems/multiprocessor/
s/secure-systems/over 2G RAM/
s/secure-systems/have RAID/
s/secure-systems/have Gigabit ethernet/
s/secure-systems/need disk quotas/
s/secure-systems/non-x86 CPU/

You get the idea....

Oh.. and let's not forget that Linus said he wanted to see a patch. ;)