Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #91023 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC] Reorganizing Linux packages

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC] Reorganizing Linux packages Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2026-01-31 18:30 +0100
    Re: [RFC] Reorganizing Linux packages Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2026-02-01 19:50 +0100

#91023 — Re: [RFC] Reorganizing Linux packages

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

Quoting Ben Hutchings (2025-09-08 22:11:40)
> On Sat, 2025-08-30 at 13:00 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > [Cc apt maintainers, as this interacts with the versioned package
> > support, reply-to kernel maintainers]
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > This is the plan to re-organize the Linux packages a bit, or maybe a
> > lot.
> > 
> > The goals are:
> > - Move packaged files out of `/boot`
> > - Replace extra cloud build with stripped down variant of the normal
> >   build
> > - Prepare for pre-built initramfs and/or UKI
> > - Remove hard dependency between headers and (bootable) image
> 
> I generally agree with these goals, but I would like to see how this is
> done.
> 
> [...]
> > ### Split modules out of `linux-image` package
> > 
> > Like the other distributions we should move all the modules into it's own
> > package, `linux-modules`.  We can then split this new package further in a
> > later change.
> 
> Let's not go too far with this.  Managing the current splitting of
> modules into udebs already takes significant time (and seems to be
> largely unnecessary).

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 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?

Thanks!

cheers, josch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#91029

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web