Quoting James Morris ([email protected]):
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > > It's already pretty clear.
> >
> > I doubt anyone not on lkml or linux-security-module has heard of this.
> >
> > So we'll see.
> >
> > (I was, obviously, talking about end-users)
>
> If distributions are shipping binary modules and other out of tree code to
> their users, then they should bear responsibility for supporting and
> maintaining the infrastructure required for it, and not expect upstream
> maintainers to do it for them.
>
> Additionally, if they want to expose their users to risks arising from
> broken and unecessary infrastructure, then they should bear the cost and
> responsibility of doing that and not expect others to do so as well.
>
> I don't see how this is even slightly difficult to understand.
I'm not talking about distros - I don't see how this is even slightly
difficult to understand :)
The situation I have in mind is someone who decideds to use, say, SLIM,
but wants to otherwise use the distro kernel.
James, relax, I'm done arguing against your patch, I just think
end-users/customers might complain.
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
