[arch-dev-public] providing grsecurity in [community]
danielmicay at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 02:16:30 EDT 2014
On 21/04/14 01:54 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> Hi again,
> As you might have noticed, I do not care too much about grsecurity,
> however I do care very much about doing things the right way. That's why
> I'll only respond to this:
> [2014-04-21 01:21:16 -0400] Daniel Micay:
>> The mailing list wasn't the only place where I've discussed this. It has
>> been a topic of conversation on various IRC channels, where numerous
>> trusted users and developers voiced support for it. I don't think a
>> vocal minority on the mailing list represents a consensus against it.
> The arch-dev-public mailing list is *the* medium of discussion between
> developers and trusted users. That's why all of us have access to it,
> and that's why all of us are expected to read it. And it really is the
> *only* one: not all of us have access to #archlinux-dev or #archlinux-tu
> and not all of us follow arch-general or aur-general.
> And when I say "medium of discussion", the "discussion" bit is extremely
> important! It's not just a poll you or someone else conducts by asking
> people privately on different channels, it really is: a discussion where
> everyone is free to raise arguments for or against, then if a consensus
> emerges we follow it, otherwise we vote.
I think I addressed the issues that were raised. I don't feel any need
to take into account trashing of the project. If there is a remaining
concern about how it could create extra work for other packagers, then
I'm open to seeing if it can be addressed and dropping the package if it
can't be fixed.
> Now I'm sorry to say this but it seems to me you have handled this issue
> in the worst possible way: ignoring community feedback as you saw fit.
I responded to constructive feedback such as the issues raised about
modules, PaX exceptions and the possibility of work being created for
others in general. The package already meets every criteria for being
included in [community], and that wasn't why I brought it up.
I sent a mail here because I needed to figure out if I was going to be
stepping on people's toes by adding PaX exceptions to packages - the
answer is a resounding *yes*, so I will not propose it again or add the
flags to my packages.
As far as I'm aware, there's nothing making this package any more
exceptional than something like vttest or whowatch with the adjusted
plans (DKMS and no PaX flags).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-dev-public