future kernel module rpm situation (was: kernel-source vs. kernel-sourcecode (please revert))

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 15:20, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:01:29PM +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If you don't use the headers that come with the kernel binary, things
> > > > will break, now or in the future. 
> > > 
> > > What headers? RedHat and Fedora don't ship any kernel headers in kernels
> > > 2.4.x. And the only files under /lib/modules/`uname -r`/ are object files,
> > > the modules.
> > 
> > and a symlink to the headers. For me that's the same thing, that point to
> > the right headers.
> 
> A symlink to the stock headers from the kernel-source rpm.
> I'd rather have it like it is now for 2.6.

Oh I absolutely agree. The 2.4 thing was a mess.
Thankfully 2.6 kbuild is a big improvement and the current situation is
possible.


> > That statement is not correct. For example Doug Ledford Device Driver Kit
> > proves that wrong.
> 
> Yes, so have I. I got mixed in the discussion and didn't explain myself
> correctly. The "thing" that gets broken most visibly is the documentation
> and requirements for external packages to build.

Yes that got broken with FC2 original release. *NOT* with this update.
When changing major kernel revisions I personally consider it more or
less fair game to include all that documentation for older kernels.

> Now, with this out of the way, forgive me for digging a little deeper: the
> change is due to a limitation on rpm, right? Couldn't we just fix rpm?

yum/apt/up2date. All three of them.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040615/3d3afde9/attachment.sig>