Kernel package and modules

[Andy Green]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Somebody in the thread at some point said:

|> It seems either I am missing your point (quite possible, no idea why
|> RECOMMEND and not REQUIRES) or we should drop the bazillion module
|> packages and put them in the one kernel package.
|>
| Because GTA01 machine can RRECOMEND the modules it actually wants
|
| GTA02 can RRECOMEND all the modules.

Google says it is "RRECOMMEND", but I didn't find any docs on it, but OK
I understand why you talk about GTA01 storage now.

| RRECOMEND because you can then move modules back and forth between
| packages and kernel without breaking the dependency chains.

If we don't expose the modules as individual packages we definitely
won't break any packaging dependency chains either, but point taken.

| I'm not even really sure of the use case for this change. To all
| modules in kernel-image. All it seems to buy us is reflashing the
| kernel everytime there is a change to the number of modules produced.
| Instead of the current scheme where we can just install the new module
| without changing the kernel.

Every time we recook the kernel with any change to sources or config, we
invalidate ALL the old modules.  Only the modules built against the
actual sources used for the monolithic kernel and with its config are
valid.  So the practical structural fact is that monolithic kernel build
and modules are inseparable.  Kernel modules are NOT like "plugins" in
other apps where there is a hard API that seldom changes; they share
each others' guts and structs directly and intimately and have to be
cooked from exactly the same "sources and config DNA" if there will not
be subtle or nasty trouble.  This is why other distros (eg, Fedora) do
not do module packaging.

OK.  It sounds the the RRECOMMENDS think takes the sting away and
optimizes space for GTA01 (if the list of recommended packages keeps
up), but it's clear the module packages don't serve any purpose in GTA02
already and we could get rid of them.  Whether it is worth the hassle I
leave it in your court.

- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiWzs8ACgkQOjLpvpq7dMrocACgk2jG7uUNQIPc+U5GkBYdQK2y
OzgAnj1KE103tMPiklJDkQ9Ku8g30WFY
=odoa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----