>>>>> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is misleading. The kernel-image-*-arch packages are much >> simpler because they do not depend both on a kernel source >> package and on a module deb package. Also, note that this >> maximizes work for the Herbert> How does that make it more complex? It has two sets of factors driving changes. Tools designed to make this maintaince process easier will be more complex than tools designed to make maintaining kernel source packages for a single arch easy. Well, at least you have a complexity vs manual effort tradeoff. I argue that currently the tradeoff is way too far on the side of manual effort and that we need more complexity. Note that all of the solutions I discussed involved this complexity. I was objecting to your implication that setting up module source packages was as simple as setting up arch-specific kernel image packages, not saying the complexity was unnecessary. >> issues. Finally, it means that I cannot release a module for a >> new arch without package-installation access to that arch. >> It's my understanding that source-only uploads only work if >> there is an existing binary package that depends on the source >> package being installed, which is not the case for new package >> source uploads. Herbert> Well, kernels/modules have traditionally required this Herbert> kind of access. There's no way around it I'm afraid. -- I'd buy that if all three potential directions I presented in my first message weren't ways around this. Module packages really aren't that different from normal packages; there is a lot of kernel code that is not arch specific. I agree that kernel packages are arch specific and you aren't going to get away from that. However, my point is partially that module packages have different constraints that kernel packages.