[arch-general] Kernel Module Package Guidelines

Robert Emil Berge list at rebi.no
Sun Dec 2 19:19:30 EST 2007

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:23:57 -0600
"Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I still can't understand why this is a problem though... according to
> pacman, the installed size is 12K, and the only possible reason I
> could think of for caring about this dep is size.... could you please
> explain the rationale here?

I understand Michael's point, I think. He's not talking about the aufs
package at all, but using it as an example for the rule in the Packaging
Guidlines that says modules should always depend on their utilities,
even when you can use the modules without them. He wasn't complaining
about not getting things exaclty as he wants them, he was only asking a
curious question. He wants to know the reason for this exception to the
rule of packages only depending on what the package needs to be useful.

To me it seems your answer is: We don't have a reason, and stop
bothering us with stupid questions. Or is it; it's ok with deps that
are not necessary as long as they're small?

Although it's a bit pedantic, I think he has a point too. If you should
follow this principle all the way, the kernel26 package should depend on
cryptsetup, nfs-utils, dosfsutils, fuse, iptables, ntfsprogs etc., you
get my idea..

More information about the arch-general mailing list