Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This thread has been going on for a while, and I think the general >> voice has been that security backports and other vital patches are >> totally alright for kernel-source. However, I think the general >> agreement is that feature backports are not okay. That's what >> kernel-patches are for.
That has not been my impression at all. As I have said before, kernel-source's primary purpose is for building default Debian kernel images. Thus it should contain all the patches necessary so that the images are uniform across architectures. Having said that, I do understand that users will use it for building custom images. But the presence of kernel-patch-debian fixes that situation. You can easily obtain a vanilla kernel that you can apply patches too. Now for those who want to get rid of just the ipsec patch, that can be done as well. Just download it from the URL specified in the README file and unapply it. If someone wants to make a kernel-patch package out of it, go right ahead. > What I'd really like to hear is a reaction from Herbert to: > Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Can your patch file to be more modular like X package? It is a big > | chunk. > > Which could make both sides happy. Instead of one big patch containing > bugfixes, security fixes and feature additions to make them separately > available in the kernel-source-package. Again this is something that I have already stated my position on. This is simply unmaintainable due to the complex relationships between patches. In any case, the kernel-source package's README file should contain all the information you need to extract any particular patch that you're interested in. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
