On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 18:29 -0400, Jordan Glover wrote: > I saw that new version landed in unstable. Is it possible to have it in > stable-backports?
Yes, that's my intention, although I intend to let it stay in unstable for a bit before doing the stable-backports upload (and oldstable-backports). > I think it will be best to have it in stable-backports ONLY (without > unstable) where it can live until 4.9 kernel gets EOL. Unfortunately that's not possible. We already have an exception from the BPO team for not beeing in testing, not having the package in unstable looks even worse I guess. > In case of unstable the gap between vanilla kernel and 4.9 will get bigger > and bigger and userspace tools may want to use new features unavailable in > 4.9 LTS thus grsec value is lower there. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which kind of tool? In any case any userland in buster needs to handle the kernel in stretch. > Of course if it's not possible let it be as it is. Thanks for your efforts. > > BTW: Here's some tools for building grsec kernel reproducible in case it's > useful to you. > https://github.com/hardenedlinux/grsecurity-reproducible-build Honestly I'm not sure I'll have time to take a look, but if people from the reproducible team want me to include some specific changes, let me know. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
