6.1 testing - kernel 2.6.10

Jeremy Utley jeremy at jutley.org
Thu Jan 13 11:52:50 PST 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:

> Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
>> Only that I had
>> thought the LFS "distro" would be made dependent on the kernel
>> rather than the other way around, ie., requiring a patched kernel.
> Well, the patch we apply to the kernel is to fix a security 
> vulnerability!  Feel free to not apply that patch, but you do so at 
> your own risk of course :)  Incidentally, more security patches will 
> be being put in, just as soon as myself or one of the other editors 
> get around to it.
> Matt.

Matt - We might want to consider just utilizing the -as patch (See 
Alexander's post to -hackers).  I still personally think this stuff 
should be going into releases, but using the -as patchset MIGHT be an 
acceptable substitute, assuming the guy making them is fairly well-known 
in the kernel dev community (something I can't judge, since I don't 
follow LKML).


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list