On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:37:42 +0200 Jan Alexander Steffens <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, friends, > > I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance > on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but > not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong. > > If it is agreeable, I would like to bring the ZEN kernel[1] into > either [extra] or [community]. I co-maintain this kernel fork and > currently release packages into my personal repository[2]. > > I use this kernel on all three of my Linux machines: A Schenker S413 > (Clevo W740SU) ultrabook, a Zotac EI750 workstation and an ASUS Eee > Box B202 internet gateway. None use out-of-tree modules. > > ZEN follows the same stable versions as core/linux but merges in a few > additional features and drivers. It also carries a handful of fixes > and performance tweaks. The BBS topic[2] lists the major differences. > The configuration of my builds is mostly identical to core/linux. > There are no packages of out-of-tree modules for this kernel and I > would not add any to our repositories. > > Talking to Allan revealed that we once had a number of patch sets. > However, apparently this lead to problems with sorting out > kernel-specific bugs. My response would be getting people to reproduce > with core/linux (which should be easier thanks to the mostly-identical > config) and sending them to ZEN's issue tracker if they have > ZEN-specific bugs. > > Qapla' batlh je! qatlho', > Jan > > [1]: https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel > [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157
+1, we already have -grsec (and -lts) so it's not a precedence. BP
pgpb5FrcmBwkB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
