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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Tom Diehl wrote:
> 
> >> There are probably lots of auto-build-some-3rd-party-kernel-module.sh
> >> scripts that do sanity checking and will now break.
> >
> >those scripts then are very broken even in FC2 GA since you cannot use
> >kernel-source for building kernel modules in FC2.
> >(well not for modules against the currently running kernel, of course
> >you can build your own kernel with kernel source and then you can use it
> >to build modules against that kernel).
> 
> Please explain, why this change was ABSOLUTELY necessary at this time and
> either was not done during the test cycle or could not wait until FC3?

ok first of all NO external module build stuff got broken. Not more than it
already was (and if it Requires: kernel-source that keeps working due to the
provides:)

> not an option given problems in the past with circular dependencies. So
> if you are going to force this down our throats, please at least give us
> some idea of the logic behind this besides, it is broken and I want it fixed.

The kernel-source package became noarch. This had a LOT of advantages,
including cleanups, saves a TON of diskspace, it IS noarch, it saves a ton of
build time too. It allows easier adding of other architectures as well.

Why not wait for FC3? Well I want the kernel development tree to be the same
tree updates come from, and remain stable at all times. That avoids double
work an missed bugfixes


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040615/fdd6651f/attachment.sig>