Re: modules

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:10:14PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:45:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why not fix the module-package so they build those binary modules themselves ? 
> 
> It makes it possible to build the correct packages, but it does not
> address the problem that this needs regular uploads of all of the
> packages which I want to fix with this.
> 
> We already did the same step with the images themself, so why not do it
> with modules?
> 
> > BTW, i am curious, how can a wireless chip be "highly" wireless :)
> 
> s/wireless/used/, better?
> 
> > > It may also contain sources themself. (One example may the ibmvscsis,
> > > which is needed on several pSeries machines but never released and
> > > Ganneff may kill me if I want to add a package with 5 source files.)
> > I am not entirely sure i agree on this. 
> 
> Please explain.

Well, my idea is to try to host all those module package in the kernel
subversion tree (under modules), in such a way that we can trigger automated
or semi-automated uploads of them in case of kernel abi changes.

We first need a way to build those modules for all arches/subarches/flavours
though, which is where my flavours file in the linux-headers package and your
linux-headers-all package come into play.

I don't believe it is ok to put all modules together in a single package for
such artificial reasons you mention, since those modules have fully unrelated
release cycles, and people would maybe not want to have them all installed, or
whatever. Already folk are complaining about the huge size of the linux-image
package and all the included modules.

Friendly,

Sven Luther