| 1 |
At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I would like to suggest that you add |
| 4 |
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/ to genpatches. It would |
| 5 |
> > be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable. Atleast for my laptop :) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> <stock answer when people ask for new patches to be added to the |
| 8 |
> gentoo kernel> No. Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, |
| 9 |
> and then it will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other |
| 10 |
> kernels. </stock> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
So what about patches that the kernel maintainers have specifically |
| 15 |
decided to exclude, such as the TARPIT target for iptables? This handy |
| 16 |
module is implemented as part of the iptables Patch-O-Matics. Some of |
| 17 |
the POMs are a bit unstable, but this one is kept out of the main kernel |
| 18 |
tree for political reasons. Some purists consider it to be "protocol |
| 19 |
abuse". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I have specific interest in the TARPIT patch, but in a more general |
| 22 |
sense, it's just an example of the many fine patches available for the |
| 23 |
kernel. It really seems quite un-Gentoo-ish (whatever that means) to so |
| 24 |
blanketly dismiss them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What say ye? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? |
| 30 |
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. |
| 31 |
--Ghost in the Shell |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives