On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Benny Amorsen <benny+use...@amorsen.dk> wrote: > Josh Boyer <jwbo...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Just splitting off most modules would do the job I would think... Of > course you can go smaller if you change config options, but that is a > lot of work. > > Maintaining a list of core modules does not sound like an unbearable > task. (Easy for me to say, of course). Then everything else under > /lib/modules can go into a separate RPM.
Your definition of core modules is going to differ from mine, and the next persons, and the next. > # rpm -ql kernel-3.6.1|grep ^/lib|xargs du -c > 31488 total > > # du -s /lib/modules/3.6.1-1.fc17.x86_64/ > 100324 /lib/modules/3.6.1-1.fc17.x86_64/ > > Making sure that the right systems get the extra module RPM is left as > an exercise for the reader. It's not simple. It's not easy. It buys you very very little and it leaves the maintainers having to continuously guess which package a module goes into. Then there's the requests to move them from one to the other. I'm _very_ against splitting the modules up more than they already are. The modules-extra subpackage has been somewhat a pain already, and those are the modules that are very rarely used. Extending it to common ones leaves me with a headache just thinking about it. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
