Re: [RFC] kernel-headers and /lib/modules/*/build -> ?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >>"Michel" == Michel Dänzer <michdaen@iiic.ethz.ch> writes:
>
> Michel> The goal of my proposal is to enable the user to install a
> Michel> kernel-image and the accompanying kernel-headers and when
> Michel> running that kernel, just invoke make to build modules for
> Michel> it.
>
> Michel> Now before I get flamed for the technical changes this would
> Michel> involve, I'd like to ask if that's a worthwhile goal at
> Michel> all. :)
>
> A initial cut at the changes involved:
> 1) the official kernel-image packages do not ship the symbolic link
> /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build installed by the kernel makefiles
> 2) the kernel image package prerm removes the symlink, so that
> official kernel image packages are removable (and do not leave
> cruft dirs with a symlink around)
> 3) Instead of shipping a tarball of kernel headers, we ship unpacked
> kernel headers. Looking at the Packages files today, installed
> sizes of kernel-header packages range from 20MB to 32MB.
> 4) the kernel header postinst is enhanced to look for the link
> /lib/modules/$VERSION/build, and, if the dir exists but the
> symbolic link does not exist, create the symlink, pointing to the
> unpacked kernel headers package.
>
> As far as I can see, this benefits people who
> a) are running the official kerel image
I don't see the need for discrimination between un/official kernel packages in
this regard.
> b) who want to build unpackaged kernel modules
> c) who do not have the real kernel sources around
For example, I (like a lot of powerpc users) am following an rsync tree to
build my kernels, so I don't have the source for any but the current kernel.
> d) are disinclined to unpack the kernel headers tarball, and use a -I
> directive while compiling their kernel module.
It's a matter of convenience for the experienced user, but more importantly, a
matter of being or not being able to do it for the newbie. Of course, the
question remains if the latter does (or even should ;) use Debian.
> I personally do not know anyone apart from Michel who actually
> fits these constraints (I mean, I have 5 kernel source dirs on my
> machine at the moment -- who needs kernel headers? And I rarely, if
> ever, run tye kitchen sunk and everything in an initrd kernel images
> we are officially producing now)
>
> I think that the ROI, given the niche use, may not justify the
> changes involved; but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I hope this helps to convince you a bit that it's not that much of a niche,
unless you consider the powerpc architecture a niche. :)
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast \ XFree86 and DRI project member
Reply to: