1 |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:01:20PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
2 |
> At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote: |
4 |
> > > I would like to suggest that you add |
5 |
> > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/ to genpatches. It would |
6 |
> > > be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable. Atleast for my laptop :) |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > <stock answer when people ask for new patches to be added to the |
9 |
> > gentoo kernel> No. Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, |
10 |
> > and then it will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other |
11 |
> > kernels. </stock> |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response... |
14 |
> |
15 |
> So what about patches that the kernel maintainers have specifically |
16 |
> decided to exclude, such as the TARPIT target for iptables? This handy |
17 |
> module is implemented as part of the iptables Patch-O-Matics. Some of |
18 |
> the POMs are a bit unstable, but this one is kept out of the main kernel |
19 |
> tree for political reasons. Some purists consider it to be "protocol |
20 |
> abuse". |
21 |
|
22 |
And, because of that, I will always defer to the upstream kernel |
23 |
maintainers, like I would hope that you also would. |
24 |
|
25 |
Are you willing to put the time and effort in to maintain, forward port, |
26 |
and handle all possible bug reports in the kernel area that is touched |
27 |
by this patch? I didn't think so :) |
28 |
|
29 |
> I have specific interest in the TARPIT patch, but in a more general |
30 |
> sense, it's just an example of the many fine patches available for the |
31 |
> kernel. It really seems quite un-Gentoo-ish (whatever that means) to so |
32 |
> blanketly dismiss them. |
33 |
|
34 |
Not at all, this is the gentoo kernel philosophy. I think we even have |
35 |
a web site that specifies this somewhere... |
36 |
|
37 |
thanks, |
38 |
|
39 |
greg k-h |
40 |
-- |
41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |