"opkg upgrade" breaks USB networking: g_ether module missing

Jay Vaughan 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  
> using
> 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  
> whole
> 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  
> care
> 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  
> one
> package and have done with it, making folks' updates faster as a side
> effect.

glad we're discussing this!

Jay Vaughan

More information about the support mailing list