[PATCH 0/2] linux-image-extra support

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 08:01:45AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 07:45 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >During UDS we discussed the current slim version of the -virtual kernel
> >and how for some uses we desire a very slim kernel and for others we
> >desire a near complete install.  We also noted that we have a constant
> >drip, drip, drop of new requests for packages to be added back into the
> >-virtual kernel.  These are both time consuming, risky, and costly to SRU.
> >The suggested solution at UDS was to drop all of the remaining modules
> >excluded from the current linux-image-virtual into a new package which
> >could then be installed when missing packages were needed.
> >
> >Following this email are two patches.  The first refactors the
> >module-inclusion logic so that it may be applied repeatedly and that
> >any left overs are retained.  The second uses these new features to then
> >package up the remainder as linux-image-extras-virtual.
> >
> >This will both ameliorate the issues described above and would also provide
> >a solution for another work item related to improving the include exclude
> >list which was slated to simplify adding packages requested via the drips.
> >
> >In my testing the only difference between the previous linux-image-virtual
> >and the new is that the empty directories are elided.  I do not expect
> >this to be an issue but would be easy to correct if needed.
> >
> >Proposing for Oneiric.
> >
> >-apw
> >
> >Andy Whitcroft (2):
> >   UBUNTU: make module-inclusion selection retain the left overs
> >   UBUNTU: add a new linux-image-extras package for virtual
> >
> >  debian.master/control.d/flavour-control.stub |   21 ++++++++++++++
> >  debian/rules.d/0-common-vars.mk              |    1 +
> >  debian/rules.d/2-binary-arch.mk              |   22 ++++++++++++++-
> >  debian/scripts/module-inclusion              |   37 ++++++++++++++++----------
> >  4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> My understanding of the use case for the -virtual flavour is that it
> is supposed to be small and quick to load. Only persistent instances
> would require the modules in your proposed extras package. In that
> case why wouldn't the user install the -server flavour to begin with

The perception is that the -virtual instance is better suited to and
configured appropriatly for a virtual setting.  For example -virtual has
cirtain boot essential xen drivers built in which the -server does not.
It is also generally configured in a more light-weight form, fewer CPU
and the like.  So people tend to want the -virtual but with "just a few
more modules".

-apw