Sending an 88.7MB kernel package just for a single wifi fix?

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/07/2013 02:50 PM, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:23:11AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 06/07/2013 11:16 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Where's the best place to have a discussion on whether or not it's
>>> better to have the kernel source package generate multiple
>>> *independently versioned* binary packages, so that, for example, all us
>>> desktop users without wifi equipment don't have to download and reboot
>>> our computers just because laptop users need an upgrade?
> To be fair, this was fixing a regression in a kernel that was never
> released to updates/security.  If you're running kernels from -proposed,
> I think it's fair to assume that you may occasionally get things like
> this as we iterate through testing.

So making linux-meta generate more highly granular binary packages is not 
worth the effort?

-- 
"There are no solutions; there are only tradeoffs."
Thomas Sowell