Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:12 +0200 | From | Tilman Schmidt <> | Subject | Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview |
| |
David Miller schrieb: > What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that > it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't > personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping > apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the > hands of the upstream community. > > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.
I beg to differ. b) is *the* reason cited again and again on LKML for submitting code for inclusion in the tree. Whenever anyone posts anything which is remotely related to out-of-tree code, whether it's a question on the usage of some standard in-tree function, a request for help with a coding or debugging problem, or out-of-tree repercussions of an in-tree change, he or she invariably has to put up with an answer along the lines of: "put your code into the tree and all your problems will be solved" - or its sarcastic variant: "I can't find your code anywhere in the current kernel sources".
You can't have it both ways. Either you go around bashing people for maintaining their code out-of-tree or you go around bashing people for trying to get their code into the tree.
-- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |