also sprach Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.10.06.2211 +0200]:
> > From glancing over the patch, it *also* replaces parts of the
> > non IPsec i.e. standard IP stack. Maybe it provides the same
> > functionality to the end user. It does *not* provide the same
> > functionality to the dev
On Monday 06 October 2003 21:11, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> kernel developers dont use the debian source package as a base
> for their work.
I have in the past for writing device drivers. Admittedly none are in the
mainstream kernel (afaik) but that is not the point.
Tom
--
^__^| T
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031006 21:57]:
> > The IPSEC stack does nothing unless you specify policies through
> > PFKEY or NETLINK. In other words, it is disabled by default.
>
> From glancing over the patch, it *also* replaces parts of the non
> IPsec i.e. standard IP stack. Maybe i
also sprach Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.10.03.1016 +0200]:
> > I cannot disable IPsec at runtime as I cannot replace the IP stack
> > at runtime, and it modifies the IP stack. Moreover, you state the
>
> The IPSEC stack does nothing unless you specify policies through
> PFKEY or NETLINK.
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * If it's a feature, can it be disabled/enabled at runtime?
>
>Sinec we're making generic kernels, this is a must. The presence
>of the patch should not prevent me from doing something that I would
>otherwise be able to do.
>
> I canno
also sprach Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.10.03.0121 +0200]:
> I have given you the reason for this many times already. Please
> reread the thread on debian-devel carefully.
This one post did in fact slip my eyes. In it, you mention some
checks when it comes to patch inclusion.
I have a p
6 matches
Mail list logo
