| 1 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:02:03 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:46:46AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 18:48, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Comments, suggestions and feedback are welcome. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> Perhaps a silly question, but why are patches rolled as their own kernels at |
| 9 |
> all? Seems to my little brain (yes, it's real small when it comes to these |
| 10 |
> matters) that it would almost make more sense to offer the vanilla kernel as |
| 11 |
> is, then have each of these (currently their own ebuilds) patches as add on |
| 12 |
> ebuilds, such as emerge vanillia-kernel, emerge grsecurity-patch, emerge |
| 13 |
> nvidia-patch, etc. After all, it's not like the ebuild for the kernel |
| 14 |
> compiles it in the first place, and as far as I know these patches |
| 15 |
> add/replace to the existing structure, right? Just a random thought, feel |
| 16 |
> free to ignore :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
we had a discussion about this on bugzilla with ck-sources 2.4.21. |
| 19 |
it would be nice to introduce some local flags for the kernel patches. |
| 20 |
Bug #22822 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives