also sprach Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.22.1109 +0200]: > Well, what you seem to want is to have the kernel source avaliable > in a format that makes packaging kernel patches easy. That seems > like a different issue to me.
No, this is the issue. I want the kernel sources to be what they promise, and not what Herbert wants them to be. I can opt-in on have the bells and whistles Herbert thinks should belong in every kernel-image, but if I don't make that choice, I want to have the kernel-source with just the security fixes. After all, Debian is known for two things: purity and security. I don't see the first one applying to kernel-source, and given that IPsec is in beta state, I don't see the second either. Moreover: 2.4 users have the choice to run IPsec: FreeS/WAN works just fine, and it happily coexists with grsecurity. It's also just another IPsec stack. Weird, huh? Maybe the 2.5 IPsec stack does patch more than add an IPsec stack? Herbert? -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
pgpNu5KXLc1J3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
