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

Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:31:46AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> 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.

no, it makes it a lot less likely.

a person/company producing a binary kernel module is FAR more likely to
create one for debian if they only have to create one module, rather
than a dozen or so. 

even if they can be bothered putting in the effort to figure out exactly
what kernel-headers package(s) and how it all works, they need installed
it's still a lot more work to produce and support a dozen versions(*) of
their module rather than just one.

(*) per kernel version that they choose to support.

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

they're one and the same. "kernel-{image,headers} package bloat" has
been the topic of this thread from the beginning.


craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

      GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57  52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0

Reply to: