linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EB97DD2.7000209@archlinux.org>
Date:	Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:06:58 +0100
From:	Thomas Bächler <thomas@...hlinux.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

Am 08.11.2011 03:10, schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> Which brings me to a question I already asked on G+ - do people really
> need the old-fashioned patches? The -rc1 patch is about 22MB gzip-9'd,
> and part of the reason is that all those renames cause big
> delete/create diffs. We *could* use git rename patches, but then you'd
> have to apply them with "git apply" rather than the legacy "patch"
> executables. But as it is, the patch is almost a third of the size of
> the tar-ball, which makes me wonder if there's even any point to such
> a big patch?

From a distro packager's point of view, I can say this:

For packaging, we always use the latest .0 release tarball and patch it
with the -stable patch files from kernel.org. It would be desirable if
those would keep working with GNU patch - not necessary though because
'git apply' doesn't require a git repository.

When packaging development versions of the kernel, it is much easier to
pull the lastest code directly from the git tree, so I never needed the
patch files for the -rc's.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (263 bytes)