Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure to fully understand what the problem is.. anyhow I gave a
> glance at the Makefile in realtime-0.0.3.tar.gz, but it seems to me
> that just having the usual /usr/src/linux tree would suffices, and I
> think this is a usual requireme
guenter geiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That would be great, meanwhile I found this message [0] about providing
> the security hooks in the debian kernel, seems that sooner or later they
> will be enabled, but then we would have to make sure that the capabilities
> are built as a module, righ
> "joq" == Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
joq> Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Is somebody
joq> already packaging Jack's and Torben's kernel module >> for
joq> the 2.6?
joq> Not that I know of. So far, it's just been experimentally
joq>
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
DeMuDi - Debian Multimedia Distribution
On 3 Mar 2004, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> I will ask on the linux-security-modules mailing list for other's
> experience with separate packaging and building. Surely there are
> examples we can look at.
That would be great, meanwhile I found this message [0] a
> "gg" == guenter geiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
gg> On 2 Mar 2004, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>> I see your point, Guenter.
>>
>> It was for similar reasons that I initially focused on the LSM
>> approach before spending time on the kernel patch. For a long
>> time to co
> "rj" == Robert Joerdens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I ask this because I'd like the differences between Debian and
>> DeMuDi package sets to be as few as possible, hopefully nearly
>> anything.
rj> As someone else already pointed out: that would be "hardly
rj> anythin
Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is somebody already packaging Jack's and Torben's kernel module for
> the 2.6?
Not that I know of. So far, it's just been experimentally hosted on
my home system, `www.joq.us'. There has been enough interest in the
LAD community that I had already
> "joq" == Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
joq> I see your point, Guenter.
joq> It was for similar reasons that I initially focused on the
joq> LSM approach before spending time on the kernel patch. For a
joq> long time to come that will be the preferred approach, and
On 2 Mar 2004, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>
> I see your point, Guenter.
>
> It was for similar reasons that I initially focused on the LSM
> approach before spending time on the kernel patch. For a long time to
> come that will be the preferred approach, and I want to make sure it
> works well.
Now the
10 matches
Mail list logo
