Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat

[Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:34:12AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >      * kernel-image-2.4.2-i386 (2.4.2-1)
> >      * kernel-source-2.4.2 (2.4.2-3)
> >        Binary packages:
> >           + kernel-doc-2.4.2
> >           + kernel-source-2.4.2
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-386
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-586
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-586tsc
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-686-smp
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-686
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-k6
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-k7
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-pentium4
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-pentiumiii
> >           + kernel-headers-2.4.2-pentiumiii-smp
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-386
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-586
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-586tsc
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-686-smp
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-686
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-k6
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-k7
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-pentium4
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-pentiumiii
> >           + kernel-image-2.4.2-pentiumiii-smp

This is insane. There are literally millions of possible variations on
the kernel that can be compiled _just by changing the config options_.
Please stop this madness. A stock kernel binary should be good enough
to get as many systems as possible booting and functioning, but no
better. Once the system is up, a kernel should be compiled if the
administrator is interested in optimizing or fine-tuning the system. A
bloated one-size-fits-all stock kernel will never do as well at this as
a custom kernel, because it will be chock full of all kinds of hardware
support and bug workarounds that most likely aren't relevant.

These kernel binaries take up space on the mirrors, and bandwith. Plus,
they are essensially useless (the speed gains are negligible for the
most part and people should be compiling their own kernels with their
anyway). If someone is not comfortable at compiling a kernel, and is not
willing to learn, they should not be administrating a Linux system.

For every architecture, there should definately be a standard kernel for the
purpose of bootstrapping. Maybe an SMP kernel too if applicable. Maybe
even a "compact" version of the kernel. But not a version optimized
for every type of CPU available on every achitecture.

P.S. Is a seperate kernel-headers package really necessary for
every CPU type? What are the differences between the headers in,
say kernel-headers-2.4.3-686 and kernel-headers-2.4.3-686-smp?
Or kernel-headers-2.4.3-k6 and kernel-headers-2.4.3-k7? I was not
aware that a different set of headers was made for every chip type!