Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:05:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:05:09 -0500 Received: from mail.cert.uni-stuttgart.de ([129.69.16.17]:16077 "HELO Mail.CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:05:06 -0500 To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of In-Reply-To: From: Florian Weimer Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:04:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Alan Cox's message of "Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:08:11 +0000 (GMT)") Message-ID: <871yewou82.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090005 (Oort Gnus v0.05) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox writes: >> Using BitKeeper might break the way security issues are currently >> handled by distributors of the GNU/Linux system, due to the open >> logging feature. > > It simply means security updates have to be kept seperate from the bitkeeper > maintained tree. We can handle that ok. It might mean the first Linus and > Marcelo push into their tree is when the vendor updates go out but thats > not a big problem to arrange Keeping changes outside the CMS seems completely unnatural to me. ;-) But maybe security-related changes are so much an exception that this isn't a problem. -- Florian Weimer Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/ RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/