On 19/07, Jan Alexander Steffens 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
Not arguing against this at all, but was wondering if there have been attempts to get the zen things merged upstream?
(Also, "Qapla'" always makes me think of kapla[1] building blocks, hehe...)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapla -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
