Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.32-1
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 09:31 +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Samstag 05 Dezember 2009 09:00:38 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
- splitted kernel-headers to extra package If you want to build external modules please install: pacman -S kernel26-headers Please change your PKGBUILDS to makedepend on this package.
Was this done to reduce the kernel package size? It's a little confusing to have kernel26-headers and kernel-headers.
Isn't it against Arch philosophy to split packages it binary and header packages?
At Samstag, 5. Dezember 2009 09:56 Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
Isn't it against Arch philosophy to split packages it binary and header packages?
First the headers from the kernel package was even a reduced amount and if you look in the PKGBUILD only for the cases if you build some packages for yourself. Second is that this discussions about what is the arch way here in public get a religious touch instead of what it has to be: First the arch devs should decides (and discuss) this and second the pragmatical way is even better than the academical way. Just only my 2c. See you, Attila
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Attila wrote:
At Samstag, 5. Dezember 2009 09:56 Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
Isn't it against Arch philosophy to split packages it binary and header packages?
First the headers from the kernel package was even a reduced amount and if you look in the PKGBUILD only for the cases if you build some packages for yourself.
I agree with Hussam here. If Arch wants to be (disk)size-effective, We would end up with hundreds of Debian-like *-{header,dev} packages. The developers are free to do whatever they want of course. Supporting debug packages for example is a feature the developers want to provide in the future and nothing is wrong with that. I just don't think splitting header packages is practical with distributions that support a port-like system. I know the kernel might be an exception but I still think the decision to split the headers is interesting and worth commenting on.
Nezmer@allurelinux.org schrieb:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Attila wrote:
At Samstag, 5. Dezember 2009 09:56 Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
Isn't it against Arch philosophy to split packages it binary and header packages? First the headers from the kernel package was even a reduced amount and if you look in the PKGBUILD only for the cases if you build some packages for yourself.
I agree with Hussam here.
If Arch wants to be (disk)size-effective, We would end up with hundreds of Debian-like *-{header,dev} packages.
We're not going to do that, it just seemed insane to include this stuff in the kernel.
I just don't think splitting header packages is practical with distributions that support a port-like system. I know the kernel might be an exception but I still think the decision to split the headers is interesting and worth commenting on.
The kernel IS an exception here, we will not start splitting out -dev stuff everywhere. It is mostly done for making the PKGBUILD more readable.
If Arch wants to be (disk)size-effective, We would end up with hundreds of Debian-like *-{header,dev} packages.
We're not going to do that, it just seemed insane to include this stuff in the kernel.
I just don't think splitting header packages is practical with distributions that support a port-like system. I know the kernel might be an exception but I still think the decision to split the headers is interesting and worth commenting on.
The kernel IS an exception here, we will not start splitting out -dev stuff everywhere. It is mostly done for making the PKGBUILD more readable.
That's what I thought. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
participants (4)
-
Attila
-
Hussam Al-Tayeb
-
Nezmer＠allurelinux.org
-
Thomas Bächler