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

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Thu Oct 18 14:44:58 UTC 2012

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> > 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.
> I'm open to this idea, but I think it's nicer if one can go from the reduced
> selection to the full just by adding in the right package, not changing or
> removing things. Unlike PAE or etc., I don't think we'd actually build
> anything differently (would we?).

Of course we would.  The entire point is to reduce the size, and the
only way to reduce the size is to build it with different config
options.  And we're not talking about going from kernel-virtguest to
kernel by installing kernel-everythingnotinvirtguest.  That's still
going down the "split the kernel up into a bunch of subpackages" route
which just creates more work for the maintainers.

At the moment though, all of this is just talk anyway.  If something
like this is to happen, someone actually has to do work.


More information about the devel mailing list