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. 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 -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
