Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:28:28 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: <deant@hawaii.rr.com>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] 3.4 kernel for v2.4 stable?
Message-ID: <20120823092828.78810e61@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120823035131.16DPE.60374.root@hrndva-web05-z02>
References: <20120822215249.5addda40@alpinelinux.org>
	<20120823035131.16DPE.60374.root@hrndva-web05-z02>
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:51:31 -0400
<deant@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>  
> ---- Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote: 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I wonder if we should upgrade to 3.4.x kernel for v2.4
> > 
> > This is not something we normally do.
> 
> Anyone know what Brad Spender and the PaX Team intend for long term
> support of the stable grsecurity patches?

I don't know. But there is a chance that they might go for 3.4.

> I'd prefer that Alpine track either the grsecurity 3.x stable patch 
> or the testing patch since upstream doesn't provide support for 
> older or backported patches.

Yes, but 3.2 kernel feels like a bad kernel.
 
> Neither option seems particularly attractive though - the former 
> would mean a move to the 3.2 kernel and the latter a move to the 
> 3.5 one.

Yes, not an ideal situation to be in.

I would still prefer go for 3.4 over 3.5. I don't think 3.5 kernel will
be maintained long.

I have backported grsec patches before. It is not that hard.

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---