Re: Maintaining kernel source in sarge
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Having kernel modules associated with the kernel source package they're
> built for makes it a bunch easier to make sure they're deleted from
> the archive along with the corresponding kernel images, and makes sure
> that when someone uploads a new kernel image, new module images get
> uploaded too.
That is an advantage. However, it also means that any update to the
modules source package cannot be built until another entire
kernel-image set is built.
But what really makes it impossible for me is that if there is a build
problem in one of the modules, then the entire kernel-image has to be
delayed or the module dropped. If the module build problem is then
fixed, the entire kernel-image has to be rebuilt again.
So IMHO, the cost outweighs the benefit for now.
In the long term, we should have as few binary module packages as
possible. They should either be integrated into our kernel-source
if it is popular enough or made source-only so that the people who
really need them can build them privately. I would see alsa in the
former category (it is already integrated into 2.5) and pcmcia-cs in
the latter (the built-in pcmcia works for most people).
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 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: