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

Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 04:28:30PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:31:46AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > 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. 

There two discussions here:

1. The number of kernel flavours.
2. The need for kernel-headers for each flavour.

I was talking about 2.

> > 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.

In that case, you're mixing them up as well.
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: