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

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Wed Oct 17 18:38:13 UTC 2012

On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> I would think the only "sane" way would be to just change the packaing,
> not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
> kernels).
> For example, a "kernel-minimal" that has the kernel and the "core"
> modules loaded in most installs (e.g. filesystems like ext4 and NFS, dm,
> network support like ipv6 and iptables, and virtio-type drivers), a
> "kernel-common" that has the rest of the current contents of "kernel"
> (and probably obsoletes "kernel"), and then the current
> "kernel-modules-extras".
> There will always be requests to move modules from -common to -minimal,
> and it shouldn't be a big fight (I would bet most requests would be
> pretty obvious).  That already exists some for -modules-extras.

You'd want to do it something like that.

kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as 
you say.

I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both of 
those and implicitly Provides: kernel.  Most people would just get the 
"kernel" metapackage when a transaction asks for something to provide 
"kernel", but if you explicitly ask for kernel-minimal you'd get just 
the minimal.

This would all be done from one kernel spec and built out at the same 
time.  We've got a lot of new infrastructure coming for kernel builds 
and we don't want to make things even more complicated by having to do 
multiple rpm build runs.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- FreedomĀ² is a feature!

More information about the devel mailing list