On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 01:54 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 08:06:42PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > > > Sometimes there are insane hard dependencies, but what's bad with those > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > dependencies? Take a look at the modules compiled into the default > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > kernel, most modules are unneeded on your machine ;). > > > > Huh? That is not insane at all! It allows the kernel to boot on as many > > machines as possible. > > > > AFAIU, only the modules which are necessary for your machine are > > actually loaded, so approx. an extra 20MB is used(?) which, these days, > > shouldn't be a problem. > > I agree and never mentioned something different. Take a look at the ^^^^
We seem to be using different parsing algorithms? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131211070907.GA26616@tal
