"opkg upgrade" breaks USB networking: g_ether module missing
jayv at synth.net
Fri Aug 1 14:13:07 CEST 2008
> But so does a single kernel package that includes the modules. There
> can be no risk of having modules mismatch the monolithic kernel then.
> Nor will changing to this model "destabilize" anything, the package is
> sticking things down /lib/modules same as the modular packages do
> the same code in the packaging app.
okay good point, i see what you are saying. i guess the only negative
to this is that people will start getting modules they're never going
to use ..
> Current setup seems unstable IMO because it indirects through the
> packaging system, bloating the work done there. The only thing that
> makes sense about it is that is reduces footprint on storage when we
> consider all the modules, but bulk of users do not want to have to
> about package selection to this degree, they will go with whatever
> default package set is.
well another thing is i could write an app that has a dependency on a
module, and get it pulled in for me by the package dependencies, i
> Anyway this is up to the packaging guys, but I would stick it all in
> package and have done with it, making folks' updates faster as a side
glad we're discussing this!
More information about the support