On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just > > CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me > > where the harm is). > > it adds useless bloat.
It is not useless, I maintain a package that needs it. > the SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC is crazy, that is adding a couple of > instructions to the hottest scheduler path. Again, I am not asking for SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC. > why would we diverge from upstream? > what's that nonesense. > each distribution is free to choose and adapt it's .config. I am not complaining about diverging from upstream, which is a perfectly natural thing to do. I am complaining about diverging from upstream for your own political agenda that you have no right to enforce using your Debian hat if it violates our social contract. > if it had users we already would have been notified. Oh please. It's really depressing to spend so much time creating a proper package, and seeing that the people who have the power to help make it work do not wish to do so for obscure reasons. If you have a personal grudge against seccomp, maybe you can let someone else in the team activate it? Regards, -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
