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

[Bill Nottingham]

Josh Boyer (jwboyer at gmail.com) said: 
> > 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.

That also works with the normal paradigm where all the variants provide
'kernel' for RPM dependency purposes; if you try to have a kernel-minimal that
provides 'kernel' while also having a 'kernel' package that requires
'kernel-minimal', things get a bit more strange.

Bill