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

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 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).

We already build multiple kernels.  All from the same source, but still
multiple kernels with different config options.  E.g. PAE, debug, etc.

>> 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.

All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec.  I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though.  It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain.

The idea that Dave, Justin, and Kevin all had simlutaneously about
doing a 'kernel-virtguest' might be worthwhile if someone wants to
spend time poking at a config, etc.

josh