kernel-source vs. kernel-sourcecode (please revert)

[Dax Kelson]

On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 20:16 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Scott Sloan writes:
> 
> > This was pointed out over on fedora-list
> > 
> > the lastest kernel src package is kernel-sourcecode. Although I can
> > understand what the package contains, neither apt or yum knew it was an
> > update to kernel-source. Is the naming switch from source to sourcecode
> > an Error or a new naming standard?
> 
> As I recall the source RPM is now built as noarch, and up2date was losing 
> its mind trying to figure out how to update {i386,x86_64}.rpm to a 
> noarch.rpm, so the name change was the easy way out.
> 
> Along the same lines, when I updated FC1 to FC2 on x86_64, I ended up with 
> Mozilla 1.4 i386 RPMs, from FC1, “overlayed” with Mozilla 1.6 x86_64 RPMs 
> from x86_64.  Messy.

Random changes are a royal pain. If there is a reasonable, doable
alternative, it should be reverted. 

Imagine how many documents and guides are out there that have sentences
along the line "make sure you have the kernel-source RPM installed. Run
the command 'rpm -q kernel-source' ... yadda yadda".

There are probably lots of auto-build-some-3rd-party-kernel-module.sh
scripts that do sanity checking and will now break.

There is going to be a lot of future wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Change is OK, but it shouldn't be done lightly.

Dax Kelson
Guru Labs
(I meant to write this when this first came up...sigh)