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

[Panu Matilainen]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Dax Kelson wrote:

> 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.

Especially as an update to what's supposed to be a stable release. For FC3
I wouldn't have minded at all but...

	- Panu -