On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Otavio Salvador wrote: >> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500 >> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> jh> Andres Salomon wrote: >> >> Cons: >> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all. >> jh> - It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we >> jh> have no precompiled modules for them anymore. >> >> I think the udebs won't be build from kernel-source directly. The >> udebs should be build using the kernel-wedge like now. But it can be >> all did together and will be faster then the current way. > > Suppose that sarge releases and you buy a copy of the official sarge > businesscard CD image for your wallet. Or you burn a set of floppies. > > Now a security fix comes out, the kernel ABI is changed, and you try to > install using your old official sarge installation media. At this point, > with or without Andres's plan, you'll get a message that the installer > was unable to find any kernel module udebs matching it kernel on the > debian mirror. > > Although, with Andres's plan, we don't even track ABIs anymore, so > perhaps the installer won't even be able to tell that the new udebs will > not work with it, and will just fail horribly later on instead of > displaying the error message.
Right. My suggestion doesn't address d-i issues. We have two options, it seems; the modules that are downloaded from a debian mirror can either be versioned to support multiple ABIs (either by package name, or by including multiple versions of modules in the package), or by downloading module source along w/ a compiler, and building them during install. Steve expressed concern about doing something like that (for obvious reasons); however, something to consider is using tcc for building modules. I have not tried it yet, but one of its touted features is its ability to compile a kernel in 10 seconds on a 2.4ghz p4. The i386 package appears to be about 100k. I'm not sure if it's been ported to !i386. More research into that would need to be done, if the d-i folks found that to be an acceptable solution. I really don't see any other options available to us, as long as we're requiring d-i images to download kernel modules from a mirror. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
