Re: [gentoo-dev] openmosix maintainer needed
Hi, OpenMosix is atm in the process of being ported to kernel 2.6. Therefor the kernel patches for 2.4 are a little bit outdated. The userland tools are rewritten as well for 2.6. Current progress is as follows: Patches for 2.6 exist and are in an alpha state. Means basic functionality is there, still bugs in there. Userland tools are atm a little bit more alpha as they rely on the kernel interfaces. If no one else steps up i can maintain openmosix, but my time is quite limited. But i think this should be a better option than removing it from the tree. Regards Michael Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, openmosix has been hardmasked for a long time: # Tim Yamin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (07 Aug 2006) # Security mask # Bugs #135167, #137623, #137626, #138617, #139321, # #139475, #139641, #140444, #141503, #142616, #142617 sys-kernel/openmosix-sources sys-cluster/openmosixview sys-cluster/openmosixtest sys-cluster/openmosix-user sys-cluster/openmosixwebview sys-cluster/openmosix-3dmon-stats It should be removed from portage, but as this is quite a big thing I'm expressing some haste before kicking it. Is anyone working on bringing this back up to date? Any strong objections to the actual removal (despite it being hardmasked already)? Thanks, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] openmosix maintainer needed
Hi, yeah, openmosix is in a very stable state, means no public progress. As i think it will take some time until openmosix for 2.6 is usable and i don't have the time to port it to actual kernel versions, i think its best to remove it from the tree and re-add it some when in the future. Best regards Michael Daniel Drake wrote: Michael Imhof wrote: If no one else steps up i can maintain openmosix, but my time is quite limited. But i think this should be a better option than removing it from the tree. voxus explained in private that openmosix is pretty much a dead project. If you are interested in seeing this kept around, I suggest you put it in an overlay. At least I don't think its feasible to maintain such a large and dead codebase in the long term, especially as this includes a kernel package. The reason for me bringing this up is to kick the security vulnerable kernels out of the tree (openmosix-sources is one offender). Realistically it's a *lot* of work to keep a kernel up to date and secure, never mind the rest of openmosix. Any thoughts on the above? Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] openmosix maintainer needed
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 21:40, Michael Imhof wrote: i think its best to remove it from the tree and re-add it some when in the future. +1. -- voxus :wq -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] openmosix maintainer needed
Hi, openmosix has been hardmasked for a long time: # Tim Yamin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (07 Aug 2006) # Security mask # Bugs #135167, #137623, #137626, #138617, #139321, # #139475, #139641, #140444, #141503, #142616, #142617 sys-kernel/openmosix-sources sys-cluster/openmosixview sys-cluster/openmosixtest sys-cluster/openmosix-user sys-cluster/openmosixwebview sys-cluster/openmosix-3dmon-stats It should be removed from portage, but as this is quite a big thing I'm expressing some haste before kicking it. Is anyone working on bringing this back up to date? Any strong objections to the actual removal (despite it being hardmasked already)? Thanks, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] openmosix maintainer needed
Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, openmosix has been hardmasked for a long time: # Tim Yamin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (07 Aug 2006) # Security mask # Bugs #135167, #137623, #137626, #138617, #139321, # #139475, #139641, #140444, #141503, #142616, #142617 sys-kernel/openmosix-sources sys-cluster/openmosixview sys-cluster/openmosixtest sys-cluster/openmosix-user sys-cluster/openmosixwebview sys-cluster/openmosix-3dmon-stats It should be removed from portage, but as this is quite a big thing I'm expressing some haste before kicking it. Is anyone working on bringing this back up to date? Any strong objections to the actual removal (despite it being hardmasked already)? Please let the GDP know when and if this package is removed, as we still have a document for it (though it hasn't been touched since 2003...). Thanks, Josh signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
