kernel source/module directions and why windows users are happy

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi *

Am Sonntag, den 22.08.2004, 13:33 +0200 schrieb Farkas Levente:

> - rename kernel-source to kernel-sourcecode. actualy it doesn't bother 
> me too much, but i don't see any reason for this. this just confuse 
> everyone.

Was a workaround AFAIK so yum & co could update from a ix86 package to
the noarch package -- see archives. 

> - add the kernel headers to the kernel package. ok i understand your 
> reason for kernel module building, but i still don't know if most people 
> don't compile kernel module, than why you doule the kernel size for 
> them. what's more kernel update happends twiece a month in fc and for 
> those who have slower net access it just waste of time/size. why don't 
> you create a kernel-headers noarch rpm? and those who compile kernel can 
> use this.

Course a lot of users won't install it and will fail if they try to
compile a module. This makes it easy and works out of the box for most
people.

Yes this point is debatable IMHO. I also would like a separate package.
But that should be installed as default. If someone removes it and
compiling doesn't work it's his own fault IMO.

Yes maybe this is also debatable. The standard personal installation
does not come with compilers. So if someone needs to install compilers
he also should be able to install this package. But I know that a lot
users will fail this step.

The worst part building external kernel-modules is IMHO that building
external kernel-modules is different on suse, fedora and others. That
makes it really hard for everyone IMHO.  

> - change the target to noarch. ok imho it's a reasonable anf good move 
> (seems to the only one).

++

> - now you simple do NOT ship/build any source code rpm!

I like this point *if* we have the kernel-sourcecode package in fedora
extras / fedora.us. Yes, normally nobody should need it, but I think a
lot of people like to have it. I plan to archive this if nobody does
it ;-)

>  did you ever ask 
> about it any REAL fc users? 

See fedora-devel archives, some stepped up there.

> did you ever see/talk users who use fc or 
> even linux? eg.: redhat/fedora do not ship ntfs driver even when the 
> kernel contain it. 

Known problem, see archives.

> suppose one need it. untill now:
>    - install kernel and kernel-source[code]
>    - update (yum, up2date...) update both when new version comes.
>    - rebuild ntfs module
>    or simple download the redhat/fedora ntfs driver rpm which has it own
>    web page, since you don't ship it.

There is a package in bugzilla at rpm.livna.org (
http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234
) -- you could help QA it so it gets easier for everyone. Yes currently
it requires also kernel-sourcecode, but that could be changed quickly,
if needed.

> but for any module which is not in the precompiled kernel they have to 
> now manualy download the kernel src.rpm (this can't be done trough the 
> nightly yum or other update process!) and compile it.

Normally nearly everything is included. Yes there are exceptions. But in
most cases then there are problems with the drivers. 

> actulay i've got my kernel-update script which recompile ntfs

You download 44 MB for a 800K driver? Okay, if you like...

> , madwifi, 
> vmware driver 

Both don't need the kernel-sourcecode package, or am I wrong here? The
only package that needs it and that *I'm currently aware of* are ATI's
fglrx drivers. But they need some special treatments in any case. 

BTW: For those interested see here:
http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211

[...]

> let's see from the windows users point of view. they simple install the 
> given driver and never ever has to "recompile".

That's not a fedora issue AFAICS. Try to convert the kernel-guys to
provide a stable driver ABI. Others have failed before... See
archives ;-)

> one can say, it's the 
> problem of the kernel module version, but i still can't convince my 
> friends about linux.

Or try to convert manufactures to Open-Source their drivers. Everyone
will be happy :-)

>  he still would like to use there wifi driver, 
> webcamera, irda port for gprs etc... which are simple working or has to 
> work a lot to be able manualy start them.

The old chicken and egg problem, right?

>  so it still seems to me that i 
> can use fedora, but the user joe won't have use fedora as a desktop for 
> a few years.
[...]

Or any other linux distribution. It's not a problem that is special to
fedora. I also think that is a great problem for linux in general, but I
think the drawbacks of a stable driver ABI are much worse.


-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>