Split off kernel-header/devel package (was: No more kernel-source(code) ???)

[Thomas Vander Stichele]

> But that is exactly the point of discussion. A kernel-devel package
> should be per kernel version, arch and flavour, not a
> conglomerate. That way you both have less bloat and it is universal to
> be extended to arbitrary kernel, e.g. ones in future errata, custom
> kernels and so on.

You have said this over and over but not provided any explanation on why
this is so.  "should be" is your personal opinion.

less bloat: installing four kernel rpms worth of content to build for
four combinations of kernel takes over 50 MB.  I don't see how that's
less bloat.  A tradeoff symlinked forest like I have only adds 1.5 MB on
top of one kernel installed, which compared to 50 MB is a very good
tradeoff.  On top of that, spec files can *still* be written *without
any additional -devel package* for the single-kernel user case.  I
consider your solution more bloat.

"universal to be extended to arbitrary kernel": maybe you should give an
example, because I really don't understand what you're trying to say
here.  I don't see how Red Hat would be suddenly unable to have a
one-size-fits-all devel package for all kernels they release as a set,
since they are releasing the set.  Same goes for outside people.  Seems
like a strawman's argument to me.


> The all-errata-in-one package would need extra maintainance from a
> central place, and would only allow building for the given set of
> kernels.

I don't see how creating *four* rpms for four kernels as compared to
*one* devel rpm for four kernels is extra maintenance.

People releasing their custom kernel in the wild should take up
responsibility and provide the same mechanism as upstream does.

Thomas

Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
and it looks so pretty
all those tiny bright lights
calling my name
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/