Yves-Alexis Perez writes:
> On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> > On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
>> > > What is stopping you from creating another package, that provides the
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mer., 2012-02-01 at 19:14 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Since 3.1 or so it is not longer possible to use this package as source
> > in terms of the GPL like the udebs have done for several releases.
> Could you be a bit more
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Wasn't it once the case with PaX that packages have to be compiled
> specially? Or some ELF headers added or so?
Some shared libraries have code which can't be run without an executable
stack, it's a small number of libraries that are written
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:55:59AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 12:18 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The current approach of having a kernel patch package seems to work well.
> Phew... well there are many people running at >stable... and for
> them it does not
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 00:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> There is an easy way to benefit from it.
Well still the user wouldn't know how to configure it...
Actually I must admit that I haven't followed PaX/grsec now for some
time (mainly due to the deb package being always out of date in sid).
Was
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 12:18 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> The current approach of having a kernel patch package seems to work well.
Phew... well there are many people running at >stable... and for
them it does not... as the package seems more or less orphaned.
Also,.. configuring something com
> On do, 2012-02-02 at 12:18 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, dann frazier wrote:
> > > Whilte it may help the kernel team to not have to worry about problems
> > > in the grsec flavor when preparing uploads, preventing delays for the
> > > non-grsec images. But, that just push
Perhaps you should contact Julien Tinnes of http://kernelsec.cr0.org/
He has been too busy to work on the kernels lately but maybe he wants to
help.
On do, 2012-02-02 at 12:18 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, dann frazier wrote:
> > Whilte it may help the kernel team to not
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, dann frazier wrote:
> Whilte it may help the kernel team to not have to worry about problems
> in the grsec flavor when preparing uploads, preventing delays for the
> non-grsec images. But, that just pushes the coordination down a ways -
> for stable updates we would need to ad
On mer., 2012-02-01 at 19:14 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:34:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Well, that's what we have the 'linux-source' packages for: to allow
> > other packages to build-depend on them.
>
> Since 3.1 or so it is not longer possible to use this
Bastian Blank wrote:
> Since 3.1 or so it is not longer possible to use this package as source
> in terms of the GPL like the udebs have done for several releases.
The Built-Using field[1] can take care of that, at least for debs. (I
don't know about udebs.)
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/641153
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:32:19PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 10:51 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > > On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:41:43PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mer., 2012-02-01 at 14:32 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 10:51 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:34:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Well, that's what we have the 'linux-source' packages for: to allow
> other packages to build-depend on them.
Since 3.1 or so it is not longer possible to use this package as source
in terms of the GPL like the udebs have done for
On mer., 2012-02-01 at 14:32 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 10:51 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > > On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500,
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 10:51 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> > > > What is stopping you from creating
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> > What is stopping you from creating another package, that provides the
> > kernel with grsecurity patches applied? Don't bother the kernel team
> > with it, and just mai
On mer., 2012-02-01 at 10:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:24:40AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> > > What is stopping you from creating another package, that provides the
> > > kernel with grsecurity patc
On mar., 2012-01-31 at 11:01 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:26:50 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez
> wrote:
> > So I think it's perfectly clear that nor Debian nor Grsecurity are
> > really interested in Debian shipping a Grsecurity kernel.
>
> Well, I don't think its fair to say
On 02/01/2012 12:01 AM, micah anderson wrote:
> What is stopping you from creating another package, that provides the
> kernel with grsecurity patches applied? Don't bother the kernel team
> with it, and just maintain it yourself in the archive? Its free software
> afterall.
>
> micah
>
Having
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:26:50 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On lun., 2012-01-30 at 14:08 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:05 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > (adding few CC:s to keep track on the bug)
> > >
> > > On dim., 2012-01-29 at 21:26 +, Ben Hutchings wr
On lun., 2012-01-30 at 14:08 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:05 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > (adding few CC:s to keep track on the bug)
> >
> > On dim., 2012-01-29 at 21:26 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 20:57 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>
[Brad Spengler]
> Frankly it makes more sense for me to offer .debs myself than to deal
> with a bureaucracy and non-standard kernel in Debian. It contains
> who-knows-what extra code, and I doubt anyone looked at any of it to
> see if it allows for some way to leak information I prevent against
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:05 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> (adding few CC:s to keep track on the bug)
>
> On dim., 2012-01-29 at 21:26 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 20:57 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > On dim., 2012-01-29 at 18:22 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> Indeed. Brad, I'm not sure if you received the initial mail, so if you
> have any comment???
It looks like there were quite a few messages I wasn't involved in ;)
Regarding minimizing the patchset, we do that already where we see
opportunities to do so. We used to carry a large constifying
(adding few CC:s to keep track on the bug)
On dim., 2012-01-29 at 21:26 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 20:57 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On dim., 2012-01-29 at 18:22 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Featuresets
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The only featureset provid
26 matches
Mail list logo
