On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: >> > As an alternative/addition, which has also been brought up before, why >> > don't we build in the most basic of modules? I'll bet we can cover at >> > least 50% of the use cases by picking some choice pata/sata modules >> > (e.g. ahci, ata_piix, pata_jmicron, sd_mod, ext4) and compiling them in >> > staticly. It, of course, doesn't cover folks with non-trivial setups, >> > but it provides a bulletproof bootstrap for a lot of people. >> >> I really think this would be a good idea. I wanted to make some >> additions to pierres pkgstats stuff so we could have an idea of how >> large percentage of our users would be covered by the modules you >> propose. I expect the vast majority would. > > Sure. I'd love to see the running kernel version and the first column of > /proc/modules submitted with pkgstats. If we were to reset the global > stats (or just reset the epoch) and make a concerted effort to have > people submit (news post, social media, allan's blog, etc) I'll bet we > could gather some good usage stats from -ARCH kernel consumers in a > fairly short timeframe.
Pierre: would something like the attached patch make sense for pkgstats? Cheers, Tom
pkgstats-modules-kernel.patch
Description: Binary data
