Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    linux.debian.kernel    |    Debian kernel discussions    |    2,884 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,524 of 2,884    |
|    Bastian Blank to Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues    |
|    Re: [RFC] Reorganizing Linux packages    |
|    01 Feb 26 19:50:01    |
      From: waldi@debian.org              On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 06:24:43PM +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues       wrote:       > a version with this split was uploaded to experimental 3 weeks ago and I just       > got around testing it. After having spent the day with fixing the software in       > and outside of Debian that I maintain which broke after the split of modules       > and dtbs into other packages I wonder:              What software are you talking about? The user package interface remains       a dependency against linux-image-*. I don't think we have any other       interfaces documented, do we?              > What is the motivation of the split other than "other distros do it"? The       > changelog only says "Split kernel modules into own package" but doesn't give       a       > rationale. Is one written down somewhere?              Actually you quoted the reasons:              > > > The goals are:       > > > - Replace extra cloud build with stripped down variant of the normal       > > > build       > > > - Prepare for pre-built initramfs and/or UKI              So in the future we wikll have n:m linux-binary vs linux-modules.              Bastian              --       Bones: "The man's DEAD, Jim!"              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca