gta02, 2007.2: state of upgrades
jayv at synth.net
Sat Aug 2 21:53:04 CEST 2008
> Why does our packaging fragment the module binaries into a zillion
> individual packages anyway and allow this issue? Why are the modules,
> intimately tied to the monolithic kernel of the same version, not in
> same package to guarantee consistency? We have the space and it
> will be
> a rare customer who micromanages his package set to the extent of
> and removing module packages.
i have been wondering about this a bit myself and i guess having all
modules broken out into individual packets means that, if a module
fails to build for some reason, we still get all the other modules.
it could *also* be broken out that way because its an indicator that,
at some point, someone, somewhere, has to make a 'combined' set of
modules for the 'default' install, but until that time it helps for
individual hackers to have individual module choice ..
my personal view is that we really should have a 'one hit and you get
the lot' package that puts on the base modules, and leave the more
exotic stuff out and/or broken into individual packages. the fact is
there are a lot of kernel modules that are useless to us, but which we
might still end up building, anyway, as part of the full kernel roll-
More information about the support