modules, firmware, kernel size (was Re: systemd requires HTTP server and serves QR codes)
dmalcolm at redhat.com
Wed Oct 17 20:46:28 UTC 2012
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:38 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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.
Random worry about this: would this work OK with yum's "keep the last 3
kernels around" functionality?
More information about the devel