On 22:59, Robert Millan wrote: > Steven Chamberlain: > > But I wonder if it would become awkward if features are provided by > > flavours. Someday we could end up with e.g. 3x2x2 different flavours, > > or have to offer the choice of one feature but not both together. > > I think offering the choice of one feature but not both together is a > good thing. Then users have some incentive to figure out what's needed > to move their feature to GENERIC and lend us a hand ;-)
Yes. Or to build their own custom kernel following the examples; I will likely do that so I can use IPSEC and XENHVM together here. > > But IPSEC is unlikely needed in a Xen domU, because IPSEC could be more > > effectively handled by the dom0, which has to be trusted anyway. > > I see... so in this case it doesn't hurt? Right, it's no problem. If the existing Xen PV flavour doesn't have IPSEC I don't think anyone will miss it. And if someday there is a XENHVM flavour I guess hardly anyone would need IPSEC included in it. So I think that leaves us with only: 486, 686, amd64, malta. Does it make sense to have an IPSEC flavour for each of those? Maybe it will fail to build on some, but otherwise I can see it as being useful on all those platforms. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130925231826.ga13...@squeeze.pyro.eu.org
