On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:32 PM Paul Bolle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marcelo Ricardo Leitner schreef op wo 02-12-2020 om 17:11 [-0300]: > > Maybe, then taking it to the extreme, less common modules can all have its > > own rpm package ;-) > > Vague ideas like this crossed my mind too. > > The local build I just finished for v5.9.12 generated less than 4000 modules.
We already do this in the packaging virtually. You don't need 4000 kmod RPMs. Every module gets a Provides: kmod(<module>.ko) listed in whatever RPM it happens to be in. Very few packages in userspace take advantage of this granularity. josh > Currently there seem to be over 6000 texlive packages. (Quick and dirty > measurements, sorry.) So splitting the kernel into an absurd number of > packages for (obscure) modules isn't a no-no on principle. > > (See https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/FedoraTexliveFailure for > an eloquent argument how reasonable decisions can lead to unreasonable > outcomes in the case of Fedora's handling of texlive packages. Note that my > laptop has currently one texlive package installed. Does that benefit me more > than the overhead of its gazillion packages at each dnf interaction?) > > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle > _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
