[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110504124708.GA27884@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:47:08 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: kernel 028stab089.1
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:58:04AM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:24 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > To avoid a possible misunderstanding: the kernel in 3.0-stable should be
> > exactly the same as -current's.
>
> I'm a bit confused with a word "exactly". Do I understand you correctly
> - we need not only the kernel update, but also config files changes with
> added/changed config options?
Definitely. Some of those changes were to fix reliability issues, so we
must get the fixes into 3.0-stable, and some others are just nice to have.
> And we don't need ping sockets in 3.0, do we?
As I mentioned in here earlier, I'd like to get most stuff that we
committed into Owl-current so far, into 3.0-stable. About the only
major exception is the OpenSSL update and some of its related changes.
So I literally mean "exactly the same" as it relates to the kernel -
including ping sockets. The only 3.0-stable specific work to do on this
update is editing of CHANGES-3.0-stable.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
