Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:13:57PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:05:32PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > switching to initrd was an improvement, but it doesn't justify the bloat
> > of having 2 dozen variants of i386-architecture kernel images. in fact,
> > it's not even relevant to the issue.
>
> You're ignoring our main disagreement. Which is whether most people
> should use precompiled kernel images or recompile them.
no, i'm not.
i keep on trying to get you to address the issue rather than try to
distract from it with irrelevancies about initrd. using initd does not
require that we bloat the number of kernel-image packages...that's
entirely your choice, and the only relationship initrd has to your
choice is that initrd makes it somewhat easier to implement.
we don't need the bloat of dozens of i386 kernel-image packages in the
archive.
all we need is one.
if the user needs a more specific kernel (e.g. with SMP or compiled
for a P2 or a K6 or whatever) then they can use manoj's excellent
kernel-package (one of debian's best features, IMO) to build a custom
kernel.
> If you took my position, which is that with initrd, there should be
> almost no reason to compile a custom kernel image, then the conclusion
> is clear.
there will always be reasons to compile a custom kernel.
2 of the most obvious reasons are:
1. not every kernel option is a module
2. it is, in general, *far* better to run a kernel which is specific to
your exact hardware and your exact requirements than to use a generic
kernel with a bunch of options you don't use and don't care about
compiled in.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Reply to: