On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:01:34PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > >>And since the kernel modular change was aimed to achieve the smallest as > >>well as the most flexible footprint I have to ask is there something > >>preventing putting every kernel module in it's own sub package ( > >>kernel-module-<module> ) to prevent ( potential ) breakage in the future as > >>people go smaller and smaller which will eventually lead to what I have > >>described here. > >Time, and packaging pain is what is preventing it. > > Contribute time to an community is work in one form or another with > the only prevention being people themselves. That is correct. I should have been clearer when I said the above. I meant I personally do not have the time to implement something like that. > > Also, the 80% > >solution as it exists today is sufficient for everyone's needs at the > >moment, so investing further to split everything up like that isn't > >really worthwhile. > > Sorry this does not make any sense to me and throwing some arbitrary > percentage number even less so since instability in package > management ( that includes kernel splits and merges repeat through > history ) and ui is what's driving people away from the community. I've seen neither decreased nor increased participation in the Fedora kernel since the split went in. I have seen a number of people express that they like the change because it suits their needs better. Everyone else I've interacted with seems to be mostly ambivalent about it. > To me this basically says that it's worthwhile to cause breakage and > end users frustration which eventually lead to less contribution to > the community ( which means less hours in total in the contributed > time pool ) but that has no meaningful end result in the long term I'm not aware of any breakage. I believe there were a few bugs very early, but for the most part things have been working fine. The split has been in 3 releases now, so this isn't new any longer. > so that's probably not what you are hinting at even if it was we > live in an ever changing environment ( IoT, ARM,Servers, > Cloud,Containers,Phones,Tablets,Desktops which are all things Fedora > is currently trying to support for example ) and the only way to Correct. Our environment is constantly changing, and so is the kernel itself. > adapt to that is to precisely to be as modular as possible with > package expressing correct dependency since that's the only > effectively way to combine what ever mixture of components put > together to reflects that environment in any given point in time. I'm sure we'd be happy to review changes that do this if someone feels inclined. There will be a lot of work if something like that goes in, which means people interested need to be willing to do that work as you said in the section I've trimmed. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
