From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: Custom kernel
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:58:31 -0500
Message-ID: <877f769r14.fsf@netris.org>
References: <60c00abf5ceeeb6cfe571991f4969c87@mail.teknik.io>
	<87d1hafkr7.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3zma72y.fsf@netris.org>
	<CAL1_imkTp8PVbQCS4rV=8APXkCDD-PgOAhQuGVKro0HoCv8kdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54771)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1cGAGb-0004wq-4v
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:58:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1cGAGY-0008RW-49
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:58:37 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:44289)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1cGAGY-0008RP-17
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:58:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAL1_imkTp8PVbQCS4rV=8APXkCDD-PgOAhQuGVKro0HoCv8kdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(David Craven's message of "Sun, 11 Dec 2016 15:59:52 +0100")
List-Id: <help-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/help-guix>,
	<mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:help-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-guix>,
	<mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Help-Guix" <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: David Craven <david@craven.ch>
Cc: help-guix@gnu.org, Dmitri Anikin <anarki@teknik.io>

I wrote:
>> For example, when I recently added security fixes to linux-libre, I needed
>> to add the patches in two separate places, and every time I update the
>> version, I need to update two places as well.

David Craven <david@craven.ch> responded:
> I believe this was on purpose to avoid having to rebuild two kernels
> every time.

My understanding is that most stable kernel updates contain security
fixes.  In any case, upstream has a deliberate policy of refusing to
specify which updates are security-critical, so we must assume that they
all are.  I'm not comfortable leaving non-Intel kernels with unpatched
security flaws.

> I was impatient to get this stuff into master because my linux libre
> arm kernel wasn't building on the beagle bone black (not enough RAM).
> I think some more patience could have made things better =P

Yes, of course, that makes sense.  I very much appreciate your work on
this.

     Thanks,
       Mark