Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

[Markos Chandras]

On 1 July 2013 20:09, Matthew Summers <quantumsummers@g.o> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:38:48 +0100
>> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly don't feel safe anymore running non-upstream code in
>>> production boxes.
>>
>> You don't run it unless you explicitly tick on that you want
>> experimental functionality _as well as_ the optional features in
>> question; as I said earlier on chat, I don't understand your point here.
>>
>> If you don't enable them, genpatches is just like it is before; I'm
>> not sure why the recommendations should change here, especially with
>> vanilla-sources taking a further step away from Gentoo Security and QA.
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> I think the point was well-made by grehkh. If the patchset patches the
> kernel's core, it doesn't matter what CONFIG_* option is set the core
> kernel code _has_now_been_changed_. This is the crux of the argument,
> I believe. AUFS simply being one example of this. I'm sure there are
> others.
>
> --
> Matthew W. Summers
> Gentoo Foundation Inc.
> GPG: 111B C438 35FA EDB5 B5D3 736F 45EE 5DC0 0878 9D46
>

And besides that, I am sure that 98% of our users out there do not
know they run a (heavily?) modified upstream kernel when they emerge
the official/supported gentoo-sources. The transition between the
minimal genpatches to the "new-shiny-feature-full" was made behind the
scenes.
This should have been communicated earlier in time.
If you ask me, I would prefer if you apply all the 3rd-party patches
conditionally (use flag?, maybe a new gentoo-sources-ng ebuild?)
It's really scary to have the BFQ in a stable gentoo-sources ebuild.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang