On 18/04/14 08:02 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 18/04/2014 13:07, Daniel Micay wrote:
On 18/04/2014 10:44, Daniel Micay wrote:
On 18/04/14 04:09 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 16/04/2014 06:09, Daniel Micay wrote: There's no problem with simply not building a VirtualBox module for the
On 18/04/14 05:34 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: linux-grsec kernel. Being not consistent is a problem to me. But nothing which I can overcome.
You're not building one now, so there would be nothing gained or lost. I build 2 modules for each release[1]. Could be 3 tomorrow. I miss your point.
I mean that users are currently compiling these modules on their own for grsec, so if there were no packaged out-of-tree modules for it at all then it wouldn't be a step backwards. The most painful part for users is compiling the kernel, especially when most of the AUR kernel packages are based on older versions of the [core] package rather than following the current configuration.
Supporting out-of-tree modules wasn't something I planned on considering at all right away. Suggestion of Massimiliano is fine to me. If we all agree to get ride of compiled modules, there is no burden to me to grsec kernel addition. This even open the door to talk about versioned kernel :)
I agree that DKMS is the best way of dealing with this.