On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Free Ekanayaka wrote: > Is module-assistant appropriate for such task? >
Yes, I think this is exactly what we need :) So whats missing is only the security part. Guenter > Free > > >> guenter geiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > My main concern is, if it is worth the effort. The module > >> solution for > 2.6 is a lot easier to integrate into > >> Debian. Very clean, separate > package, only care has to be > >> taken that it is available for all kernel > flavours. > >> > >> AFAIK, the LSM has no CPU dependencies. But, it has probably > >> only been tested on x86 so far. > >> > >> If there are still Debian platforms that don't run 2.6 or can't > >> support the SELinux LSM hooks, they will be a problem. > >> > >> > Then eventually, everyone just wants to use 2.6 in the very > >> near future. > So if there are only small drawbacks in terms > >> of lowlatency behaviour, I > would prefer the 2.6 solution. > >> > >> For those needing turn-key support for realtime multimedia, I > >> think the 2.6 solution will work fine. The latency now seems > >> to be good enough on most machines for most purposes. > >> > >> Those wanting to squeeze out an extra millisecond or two still > >> have the option of building their own kernels. Today, getting > >> lowlatency with 2.4 normally requires familiarity with kernel > >> building and patching. Even if an additional realtime patch > >> were provided, it need not be built into the standard Debian > >> kernel images. Those who apply low-latency patches already, > >> could easily apply this patch too, it they want it. -- joq > >> > > > gg> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > gg> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of > gg> "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
