On Monday 23 March 2009, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 23:05 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Monday 23 March 2009, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > IIRC I was asked to add direct to i386 instead of adding to kernel > > > wedge. Maybe that was because i386 was the only one back then > > > though and for two arches kernel-wedge makes sense. The only other > > > (currently) potential arch is ia64 though. > > > > IMO adding them to kernel wedge does not make sense as long as that > > results in the modules being added in generic kernel udebs (such as > > nic-modules) for arches where they are sure to be unused. > > The modules aren't even built on architectures where Xen is not > supported or enabled in the kernel .config, so there is no danger of > them getting into any udebs where they don't belong. The modules are > marked as optional for this reason, see for example the 486 kernel > which doesn't have Xen enabled in it, and as expected there are no Xen > modules in any 486 udeb despite them being present in the 386 specific > udeb lists. You mentioned IA64. As long as we have no D-I support for Xen for that, adding the udebs in kernel-wedge would result in them being uselessly being included there. Also, for i386 you have the split between the 486 kernel and the Xen kernel for D-I, but that's not true for amd64. So for amd64 the Xen modules would end up in all images.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.