heya Ed...
i see you try to "fix" the linux-vserver way of patching too... i've been
asking this very same question for years now. Keep in mind that bertl
doesn't like grsecurity patches, so he is definately NOT going to do
anything that makes "our" work easier...
PS. thanks a million for being on the way to take over the vserver/grsec
patching! ;) i feel really bad that i don't have the time/possibilities
anymore to work "enough" on this.
but of course, if ever you have a question/something i have to
investigate, let me know!!!
Kind regards,
Rik Bobbaers
-- http://harry.enzoverder.be
linux/unix/system/network/security/hardware admin
infrastructure architect
> Hi Herbert
>
> I have started to look at a process to track vserver, plus a couple of
> other kernel patches that I like. One of the minor snags I keep hitting
> is minor merge failures with the Makefile... These merge conflicts would
> disappear if you would be kind enough to switch to using the
> "localversion-" method to add EXTRAVERSION params rather than patching
> the Makefile? (this also seems like the most advocated solution as well?)
>
> To be explicit, if you would please create a file: localversion-vserver
>
> With the contents, eg:
> -vs2.3.0.37-rc4
>
> Then this would achieve the same effect as modifying EXTRAVERSION, but
> would assist me by removing a regular merge failure which I'm finding
> difficult to automate?
>
>
> Also, I notice that you include in your patch some files normally
> excluded by the kernel .gitignore:
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/*_reg_safe.h
>
> Perhaps these should be excluded when you cut your patch?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ed W
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 15 10:42:11 2011