Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
You'd want to do it something like that.
kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as you
say.
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both of those
and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain.
The idea that
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I'm open to this idea, but I think it's nicer if one can go from the reduced
selection to the full just by adding in the right package, not changing or
removing things. Unlike PAE or etc., I don't think we'd actually build
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:34:00AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
At the moment though, all of this is just talk anyway. If something
like this is to
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:56:21AM -0500, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
I'm really against splitting the modules up into more subpackages,
regardless of how many it is. I will not spend any time looking at how
to do that. I won't spend time discussing further plans to do something
I don't feel
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
(but of course I could be wrong).
It use to be
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
the module - firmware level by generating it from the MODULE_FIRMWARE tags.
(Unless you're relying on
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
[...]
Both - if people want firmware packages split out of linux-firmware, it
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
is.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
reasonably-small minimal image,
not true.
Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
think it has to be.
so if that's
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
What the hell did you drink today, Bill? Basically what you're
suggesting is that Fedora move to a kmod model for everything. Which
means you'd have to install all of them by default anyway or the kernel
team would be swamped with
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
reasonably-small minimal image,
not true.
Given that the kernel is
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
think it has to be.
No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel;
use a compressed filesystem, don't use a kernel at all and
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's hard,
it is a mess.
but the only way we're going to get to a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Basically: it's
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:34:22PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
If it is all about using kernel-minimal (or whatever it is called)
instead of kernel there is no extra work for the ones that build
minimal images at all.
It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
same kernel (identical
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com said:
It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
same kernel (identical vmlinuz) with groups of modules, then I'm
assuming this is the same as what everyone else is proposing.
I would think the only sane way would be to
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
For example, a kernel-minimal that has the kernel and the core
modules loaded in most installs (e.g.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
There will always be requests to move modules from -common to -minimal,
and it shouldn't be a big fight (I would bet most requests would be
pretty obvious). That already exists some for -modules-extras.
That's why I suggest defining
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both
of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
get the kernel metapackage when a transaction asks for something
to provide kernel, but if you
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:40:39 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd introduce a third metapackage just kernel that requires both
of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
get the kernel
Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
package ?
with vmxnet3, vmw_pvscsi, vmw_balloon to support vSphere
(all included in the upstream
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:38 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
For example, a kernel-minimal that has
On 10/17/2012 01:46 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Random worry about this: would this work OK with yum's keep the last 3
kernels around functionality?
That's obviously something that would have to be tested if this is
attempted.
I'm not signing up for this work, I was just making a suggestion
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only sane way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
We already build multiple
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
package ?
with vmxnet3,
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
(but of course I could be wrong).
It use to be optional, I know on the olpc xo-1 it use to be optional
and there should be
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:07:56AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
the module - firmware level
31 matches
Mail list logo
