[arch-general] Kernel Module Package Guidelines

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 19:36:50 EST 2007

On Dec 2, 2007 6:19 PM, Robert Emil Berge <list at rebi.no> wrote:
> 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..

The rationale is that the aufs and aufs-utils packages are actually
part of the exact same source tarball and are simply separated due to
the fact that we support multiple kernels. As such, the _original
author_ intended them to be used together.

More information about the arch-general mailing list