modules, firmware, kernel size (was Re: systemd requires HTTP server and serves QR codes)

Dave Jones davej at
Wed Oct 17 16:52:14 UTC 2012

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:

 > > Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
 > > think it has to be.
 > No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel;
 > use a compressed filesystem, don't use a kernel at all and some
 > container based approach instead of full virt for your cloud instances
 > (you could even base them on a btrfs subvolume and save more space
 > that way).
 > Outside of the cloud use case the disk space added by modules and
 > firmware does not matter a bit (so I am ignoring this cases).
 > So there are lots of other ways to achieve what you want without
 > splitting the kernel into hundreds of sub packages.  So while it is a
 > way it is not "the only way".

As reluctant as I am to introduce new kernel packages, an ultra-minimal
kernel package for use in cloud environments may make more sense than
splitting up the one-size-fits-all packages into hundreds of sub-packages.
But even this option is a lot of work, and isn't a panacea.

With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud package ?


More information about the devel mailing list