Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:44:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> i disagree with you primarily because the cost of having so many
> kernel-image packages is too high.
That is your opinion, and I disagree with it.
> that cost is over 100MB per kernel version, that's several hundred MB
> with several kernel versions available (1 or 2 x 2.2.x kernels and 1 or
> 2 x 2.4.x kernels, possibly a 2.5.x kernel as well)
With the latest release, it's now down to about 80MB. In any case, we
never release with more than one old kernel, nor with experimental kernels,
so that would be 1 x 2.2.x, and at most 2 x 2.4.x.
> that means extra bandwidth consumed to sync each and every mirror
> site...repeated every time a kernel-image is added to or upgraded in
> the archive. that could easily run into several gigabytes per month
> PER mirror...and dozens of gigabytes extra per month for master and
> ftp.debian.org to feed all the mirrors.
That I am afraid is hyperbole. Even if I were on steroids, I just don't
see myself making more than 4 uploads per month, that's what 320MB?
> it also means more space consumed on the CD-ROM - several hundred MB
> extra wasted on kernel images in the release will mean at least one
> extra CD-ROM. that means a more expensive release, and more difficult
> and time-consuming to produce.
As I said before, someone will need to look into the problem of CDs and
in particular of being able to not include everything in the distribution
on CDs. This is merely a manifestation of a greater problem.
> it also means more gigabytes of bandwidth used by people mirroring the
> ISO images.
I think you exaggerate too much.
> the benefit of having all those extra kernel-image packages around is
> soemwhere been non-existant and negligible...but the cost is enormous.
We clearly disagree, so let's leave it at that.
> just as you stated you'd be filing bug-reports to get 2.2.17 kernel
> image removed from the archive, i'll be filing "package should not
> exist" bugs against all the excess kernel-image bugs.
Go ahead, I'll close them as soon as they're filed.
> > Most are. In my opinioin, there isn't anything that is particular
> > important to most people which haven't been modularised yet.
>
> you seem to think that optimisations for specific ia32 sub-architectures
> are important enough to package...
How does this relate to what I said?
> there's good reason to worry about kernel modules now that there are
> known hax0r stealth modules which exist purely to hide the fact that a
> system has been compromised.
And what does this have to do with our discussion?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: