Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > Having kernel modules associated with the kernel source package they're > built for makes it a bunch easier to make sure they're deleted from > the archive along with the corresponding kernel images, and makes sure > that when someone uploads a new kernel image, new module images get > uploaded too.
That is an advantage. However, it also means that any update to the modules source package cannot be built until another entire kernel-image set is built. But what really makes it impossible for me is that if there is a build problem in one of the modules, then the entire kernel-image has to be delayed or the module dropped. If the module build problem is then fixed, the entire kernel-image has to be rebuilt again. So IMHO, the cost outweighs the benefit for now. In the long term, we should have as few binary module packages as possible. They should either be integrated into our kernel-source if it is popular enough or made source-only so that the people who really need them can build them privately. I would see alsa in the former category (it is already integrated into 2.5) and pcmcia-cs in the latter (the built-in pcmcia works for most people). -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
