[PATCH 0/2] linux-image-extra support
apw at canonical.com
Fri Sep 16 14:47:26 UTC 2011
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 08:25:52AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 08:11 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >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.
> >>>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".
> Hmm, I'd forgotten about the Xen drivers. Well, if we're gonna go
> the route of having an extras package, then why don't we make
> -virtual _really_ lean and fast and move all but the boot essential
> bits into the extras package ? Perhaps thats something we can
> explore for 12.04. At any rate,
> Acked-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com>
Yeah I'd be up for a bit of that.
More information about the kernel-team