--=_courier-7315-1048454493-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 09:36:28PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>=20
> > > Do not get me wrong, I think users can and should compile their own
> > > kernel if they want. And as kernel developers, we should facilitate
> > > that. But if someone requires handholding and instant or controlled
> > > releases of bug fixes, they either need to be able to rely on their o=
wn
> > > ability to get them or their vendor. We have vendors for a reason,
> > > after all.
> >=20
> > If that's people's attitude ("you should use a vendor"), then we
> > need a=20
>=20
> I believe sentence "you should use a vendor kernel" schould be banned
> on this list ;-).
ACK ;-)
> How badly would releasing 2.4.21 which does not have 2.4.20-preX as a
> parent mess version control systems? =20
I guess this would make problems with the incremental patches.
I think putting an official patch for 2.4.20 closing the ptrace hole on
www.kernel.org should be no problem, and people compiling the kernel
themselves could easily use a correctly patched kernel. The main problem
(IMHO) is finding the correct patch. Even a link to the mail in the
archive might be sufficient.
(I hope this has not been suggested before, I was unsubsribed to lkml
for some days)
Regards,
Martin
--=_courier-7315-1048454493-0001-2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+fiUdV3BRtc7IW1wRAtgwAJ0XpRLlVOAqEqiWNLSAs/FrdvoDJwCfUZ+k
lk3KjYqgWJT+U3pxT0PB63A=
=f2Ga
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=_courier-7315-1048454493-0001-2--