[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat

On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Ok, so why did this come up at all in the discussion of the kernel
> package bloat? It seems to me that providing optimized kernels is a

Because someone asked why the kernel-headers necessary.  Their presence
allows both our module maintainers and other maintainers to compile modules
easily.  It doesn't mean that they will.  But it certainly makes it a lot
more likely.

> after seeing so many kernel versions. Your binary module argument
> would support encouraging the use of a uniform kernel build. I don't
> care about this particular argument or its consequences, but I would
> think that you would, with your sympathies to "binary-only" kernel
> modules.

You seem to be confusing the kernel-header discussion with the kernel-image
discussion.  Please go back and reread the thread.
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: