On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain. >> > >> > The idea that Dave, Justin, and Kevin all had simlutaneously about >> > doing a 'kernel-virtguest' might be worthwhile if someone wants to >> > spend time poking at a config, etc. >> >> That also works with the normal paradigm where all the variants provide >> 'kernel' for RPM dependency purposes; if you try to have a kernel-minimal that >> provides 'kernel' while also having a 'kernel' package that requires >> 'kernel-minimal', things get a bit more strange. > > 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 > anything differently (would we?). Of course we would. The entire point is to reduce the size, and the only way to reduce the size is to build it with different config options. And we're not talking about going from kernel-virtguest to kernel by installing kernel-everythingnotinvirtguest. That's still going down the "split the kernel up into a bunch of subpackages" route which just creates more work for the maintainers. At the moment though, all of this is just talk anyway. If something like this is to happen, someone actually has to do work. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
