From: ben@decadent.org.uk 
  
 On Sat, 2025-08-30 at 13:00 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: 
 > [Cc apt maintainers, as this interacts with the versioned package 
 > support, reply-to kernel maintainers] 
 > 
 > Hi 
 > 
 > This is the plan to re-organize the Linux packages a bit, or maybe a 
 > lot. 
 > 
 > The goals are: 
 > - Move packaged files out of `/boot` 
 > - Replace extra cloud build with stripped down variant of the normal 
 >   build 
 > - Prepare for pre-built initramfs and/or UKI 
 > - Remove hard dependency between headers and (bootable) image 
  
 I generally agree with these goals, but I would like to see how this is 
 done. 
  
 [...] 
 > ### Split modules out of `linux-image` package 
 > 
 > Like the other distributions we should move all the modules into it's own 
 > package, `linux-modules`.  We can then split this new package further in a 
 > later change. 
  
 Let's not go too far with this.  Managing the current splitting of 
 modules into udebs already takes significant time (and seems to be 
 largely unnecessary). 
  
 > ### Replace extra cloud build with stripped down variant 
 > 
 > We currently build a special config for cloud environments.  This comes 
 with 
 > some downsides, like we currently disable DRM and force traditional 
 framebuffer 
 > drivers. 
 > 
 > This should be replaced with a stripped down version of the normale 
 variant. 
 > It should specify possitivly which modules and dependencies should be 
 included, 
 > without need to change the config. 
 > 
 > Currently we use this extra variant for CI builds.  We need to find another 
 way 
 > to do CI builds without exploiding build times.  Like stripping almost all 
 > modules from the build. 
  
 I like the fact that we do build a real configuration in CI builds, and 
 I would like to move forward to actually doing some boot testing of 
 that.  Introducing separate configurations for CI that would never be 
 used for real feels like a regression. 
  
 It seems like this would also result in it being possible to install 
 linux-{headers,image}-cloud-amd64 and then build an OOT module that 
 depends on an in-tree module that isn't installed.  Currnently this 
 problem would be detected at build time. 
  
 [...] 
 > ## Side effects 
 > 
 > - Images will get uninstallable until signed packages are available by 
 default 
  
 Can you expand on this? 
  
 > - Closes way back to module signing via secure boot key 
  
 I don't think that's a concern any more. 
  
 > - Unsigned image is not longer installable in a booting configuration 
 [...] 
  
 I think that's fine.  We would need to adjust some scripting, but I see 
 the current -unsigned packages as an internal detail that only confuses 
 users. 
  
 Ben. 
  
 -- 
 Ben Hutchings 
 If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault. 
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmi/OHwACgkQ57/I7JWG 
 EQmRdBAAjP87eCdjzv8C1bFmE/R2jB3OwyBtFHAse/N4ovmTbTk/hTzmpo8wRa2/ 
 UqGg2Pq60lNHCelRE3m2D2d8PymvWnv7SwoCW9krYQ61KDtE2J+RH2JyaanE2WmM 
 5NeR6JfNfNm2KhqMGCJpkoEe28PmUvMnDrJAuR+sFORhiH4OLIFgjSYz6c0bfyGc 
 rB2n18fNYg/KtOcc+pdOOu55BKBGP59rHvw04TWynLez/XDZOyu5bnrnwqLIn7gn 
 mCgX4zOFa8Gkt7pbWpsj0C2Yt1s/YzIQb4tSf8kzPt5Yp/auMpEgbZSZzfducted 
 P7iPfxE2LJrnEytogKTihA8/tzK3ab9Gg6GTd15zIEsh6SCk2ifXZ0kWzMwvAXAe 
 VfFk2SB5wv2MvO3969uZakbBYgr22qcimeeeZW6mGkZvBXINqAQ8IyWjzNuN/FtV 
 Agry7A7uP9MbVPYTsiopYVxip1h9i48kQ8BR3JN0hT26qS2rX232uM1VrszLE5Ix 
 o8C9wlJ75yKE8MjUkANsnyooX4ze9OFZADpJ3AsGomewMOCs1JogvvPgvF9Wl81o 
 omcvrNI0b60dvTy/KFzuZo2GDEXEv0EXgWAJDgUinQGb5UR/7YItQ4Ls6Nz1AeHk 
 VseRJIjwa6ALjLKq/f6aRmo5vmDb3vQbIMEg7HkXMSdsO+RGMTw= 
 =T+o4 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)