Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat
> I agree that it is not too hard to compile your own kernel.
> I never use Debian's standard kernel-image packages (except on
> my 68K Mac, where it takes too long to recompile).
Hey, hey, it's for you! Do you guys really expect all Debian users ==
Debian develoepers? What about k12 users? What about, say Donald
E. Knuth? Do you really think that trivial cubersome kernel compiling
ability is necessary for all to enjoy? They may just have no time,
they may have no interests! Please don't even try to educate(??) them
on this, OK?
That said. If you guys are really into Craig's kernel-helper idea, go
ahead with it. It yes could help you and me. But it still would make
nonsense to many and they may still be in favor of pre-compiled,
optimized (maybe trivially or whatever I left this to Herbert to
decide) binary kernel.
If you argue this for bloat, now look on XEmacs, just for
example. There could be a single xemacs-mule-canna-wnn instead of
xemacs-nomule, xemacs-mule, and xemacs-mule-canna-wnn. Right? Wrong!
Becasue if we could do all users a favour, then why not? Isn't this
the whole point of Debian?
(But I agree the number of kernel packages for now is tunable, which
Herbert seems be doing.)
--
http://dim.sourceforge.net ............... Debian Chinese Input Method
http://njlug.sourceforge.net ............ NanJing GNU/Linux User Group
http://cdlinux.sourceforge.net ........... Debian running on Live! CDs
http://people.debian.org/~zw ...................... XEmacs Screenshots
Reply to: