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

[Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:45:08AM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:20:07 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
> <strange at nsk.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> And I think the gist of the rebuttal argument is that for the 2.6 kernels
> the documentation is already 'broken' in that if its refering to
> kernel-source or
> kernel-sourcecode.. The point of Arjan's posts is that kernel module building
> shouldn't be using kernel-source rpm at all, it should be using the
> files in a directory
> like /lib/modules/2.6.6-1.435/build/ to build against.  For kernel
> module building documentation and build scripts, this rpm package name
> change has exposed a bug that was already present. If I'm
> understanding Arjan correctly, all references to kernel-source in
> regard 2.6 kernel module building is a bug and all instructions should
> be fixed so that people aren't told to use kernel-source OR
> kernel-sourcecode for module building. Atleast for building kernels
> for the running kernel. What people who build external modules
> packages need to do now..to do it correctly is a bit less clear..since
> they have to build modules for the save kernel version but different
> arches.
> I still don't understand how thats suppose to work out, but its also
> more of a developer/packager issue and has a higher bar of
> 'understanding' than simple end-user/sysadmin issues like building
> needed modules for the kernel you are running.
> 
> 
> > There are several references to kernel-source that will end up obsoleted
> > and will confuse users. Messages in mailing lists, installation
> > documentation, etc.
> 
> there is installation documentation for fedora?  
> 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Could  'we'? Are you volunteering to help with rpm development?

Not for next month and an half, no. Finals, lack of a personal computer
(still waiting for an ibook, and some linux related events to prepare.

But afterwards there's at least one thing I want to check in rpm.

Sorry if it sounded like I was volunteering you guys. (In a way, I was, my
apologies.)

Regards,
Luciano Rocha