Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

David Miller schrieb:
> What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
> it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
> personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
> apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
> hands of the upstream community.
> 
> Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.

I beg to differ. b) is *the* reason cited again and again on LKML
for submitting code for inclusion in the tree. Whenever anyone
posts anything which is remotely related to out-of-tree code,
whether it's a question on the usage of some standard in-tree
function, a request for help with a coding or debugging problem,
or out-of-tree repercussions of an in-tree change, he or she
invariably has to put up with an answer along the lines of: "put
your code into the tree and all your problems will be solved" -
or its sarcastic variant: "I can't find your code anywhere in
the current kernel sources".

You can't have it both ways. Either you go around bashing
people for maintaining their code out-of-tree or you go around
bashing people for trying to get their code into the tree.

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                    E-Mail: [email protected]
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[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]
  Powered by Linux