Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-30 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:11:11AM -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire > the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and > generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use > at the world's major airports. That ass

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-30 Thread Xavier Bestel
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 09:11 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire > the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and > generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use > at the world's major airports. That assembly,

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-30 Thread linux-os (Dick Johnson)
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk: >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >>> Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk: Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero relevance here. >

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-29 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk: >>> Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero >>> relevance here. >>> >>> And there's value in making life harder for

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > > Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero > > relevance here. > > > > And there's value in making life harder for such modules with > > questionable legali

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero > relevance here. > > And there's value in making life harder for such modules with > questionable legality. As an example, consider people who experienced > crashes of "the Linux

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Am 28.10.2007 15:37 schrieb Stefan Richter: > Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter: >>> You two are hypothesizing. >> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether >> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult >> for out of tree s

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Simon Arlott
On 28/10/07 14:37, Stefan Richter wrote: > Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter: >>> You two are hypothesizing. >> >> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether >> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult >> for out of tree

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Stefan Richter
Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter: >> You two are hypothesizing. > > No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether > LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult > for out of tree security module developers. I still believe you

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter: > You two are hypothesizing. No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult for out of tree security module developers. > - We (most of us) change APIs to improve the kern

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-28 Thread Stefan Richter
Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> There is a big difference between "not doing anything to help" >> and "actively doing something to make life difficult for". The >> former is undoubtedly legitimate. It's the latter we're >> discussing here. >

Re: eradicating out of tree modules (was: Linux Security *Module* Framework)

2007-10-27 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Greg KH schrieb: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > >> [...] I still think there will always be > >> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at > >> all, and deliberately mak

Re: eradicating out of tree modules (was: : Linux Security *Module* Framework)

2007-10-27 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Adrian Bunk schrieb: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > [...] Once

Re: eradicating out of tree modules

2007-10-27 Thread Stefan Richter
Tilman Schmidt wrote about: > breaking interfaces they rely on for no other "very good > reason" than to discourage out-of-tree development? How often did this happen yet? -- Stefan Richter -=-=-=== =-=- ==-== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

eradicating out of tree modules (was: : Linux Security *Module* Framework)

2007-10-27 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Adrian Bunk schrieb: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: [...] Once you admit that there is code which, for very good reasons, won't ever

eradicating out of tree modules (was: Linux Security *Module* Framework)

2007-10-27 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Greg KH schrieb: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> [...] I still think there will always be >> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at >> all, and deliberately making life difficult for out-of-tree code >> maintainers in order to coerce