I received a request to add insmod.static to the module-init-tools
package, but I do not really like either solution.
Does anybody have an opinion about this?

----- Forwarded message from "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> -----

From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
To: Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it>, Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>,
627353@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#627353: Please include insmod.static

[Previous response appears to have been consumed in the aether]

> Can you clarify why it does?
> I do not really like wasting space on every Debian system without a good
> reason.

Well I can tell you what we use it for in febootstrap:

We boot the appliance using a custom initramfs which has a statically
linked init (no libc6) and which has to load kernel modules in order
to mount the real root filesystem. In order to load those, we need a
statically linked insmod.static.

However I understand that having insmod.static on every Debian machine
just for this purpose is a waste of space. Can it be easily included
in a sub-package?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top


----- End forwarded message -----

--
ciao,
Marco


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110520115612.GA22199@bongo.bofh.it">http://lists.debian.org/20110520115612.GA22199@bongo.bofh.it

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 01:56:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I received a request to add insmod.static to the module-init-tools
> package, but I do not really like either solution.
> Does anybody have an opinion about this?

Don't. There exists a klibc linked insmod that needs < 100k for the
binary and the interpreter/shared part. Also we have a busybox-static in
the archive that should also support insmod.

This would be wasting one package or lets say 800k on every system just
to please one really specific use case, which can be and is already
solved another way.

Bastian

--
Power is danger.
-- The Centurion, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110520123017.GA22077@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20110520123017.GA22077@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org

On May 20, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> wrote:

> This would be wasting one package or lets say 800k on every system just
> to please one really specific use case, which can be and is already
> solved another way.
Also, I have not looked at febootstrap but if it implements its own init
then it could probably easily implement its own insmod as well.

--
ciao,
Marco