Re: RFC: Thoughts on building modules
>>>>> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:
Herbert> Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:
>> This is misleading. The kernel-image-*-arch packages are much
>> simpler because they do not depend both on a kernel source
>> package and on a module deb package. Also, note that this
>> maximizes work for the
Herbert> How does that make it more complex?
It has two sets of factors driving changes. Tools designed to make
this maintaince process easier will be more complex than tools
designed to make maintaining kernel source packages for a single arch
easy. Well, at least you have a complexity vs manual effort tradeoff.
I argue that currently the tradeoff is way too far on the side of
manual effort and that we need more complexity.
Note that all of the solutions I discussed involved this complexity.
I was objecting to your implication that setting up module source
packages was as simple as setting up arch-specific kernel image
packages, not saying the complexity was unnecessary.
>> issues. Finally, it means that I cannot release a module for a
>> new arch without package-installation access to that arch.
>> It's my understanding that source-only uploads only work if
>> there is an existing binary package that depends on the source
>> package being installed, which is not the case for new package
>> source uploads.
Herbert> Well, kernels/modules have traditionally required this
Herbert> kind of access. There's no way around it I'm afraid. --
I'd buy that if all three potential directions I presented in my first
message weren't ways around this. Module packages really aren't that
different from normal packages; there is a lot of kernel code that is
not arch specific. I agree that kernel packages are arch specific and
you aren't going to get away from that. However, my point is
partially that module packages have different constraints that kernel
packages.
Reply to: