Quoting Robert Watson (from Sat, 12 Feb 2011
19:08:59 + (GMT)):
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:52:48 + (GMT) Robert Watson
wrote:
The one comment I'd make is that the MAC case should indicate that
"The MAC Framework" is supported, rather
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:52:48 + (GMT) Robert Watson
wrote:
The one comment I'd make is that the MAC case should indicate that "The MAC
Framework" is supported, rather than mandatory access controls being
present -- the presence of the frame
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:38:06 +0300 Anonymous wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the
> > system. Before committing them, I would like to get some review
> > (like if macro is in the correct file, and for those FEATURE
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:52:48 + (GMT) Robert Watson
wrote:
> The one comment I'd make is that the MAC case should indicate that
> "The MAC Framework" is supported, rather than mandatory access
> controls being present -- the presence of the framework doesn't imply
> the presence of mandatory a
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
When I was beginning this GSoC work, I primarily thought about unifying the
way to determine if particular feature exists in the kernel. Of course there
should be at least one way to check if the feature is available or not (by
definition: if I may use
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro is in
the correct file, and for those FEATURES where the description was not taken
from NOTES if the de
On 11.02.2011 17:38, Anonymous wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
>> Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro
>> is in the correct file, and for those FEATURES where the descripti
On 11.02.2011 14:54, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> As a 3rd point (attention bikeshed ahead), having everything as a
> FEATURE would give an uniform way of listing what is available or not
> (with the benefit to administratively hide parts of it). Needless to
> say that this would reduce the amount
Alexander Leidinger writes:
> Hi,
>
> during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
> Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro
> is in the correct file, and for those FEATURES where the description
> was not taken from NOTES if the descriptio
Quoting John Baldwin (from Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:51:52 -0500):
On Friday, February 11, 2011 4:30:28 am Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro
is in the correct f
On Friday, February 11, 2011 4:30:28 am Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
> Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro
> is in the correct file, and for those FEATURES where the description
Hi,
during the last GSoC various FEATURE macros where added to the system.
Before committing them, I would like to get some review (like if macro
is in the correct file, and for those FEATURES where the description
was not taken from NOTES if the description is OK).
If nobody complains, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
