Split off kernel-header/devel package (was: No more kernel-source(code) ???)

Jack Neely jjneely at pams.ncsu.edu
Mon Jun 28 21:10:54 UTC 2004


On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 08:18:57PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:42:53AM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
> > Now, I could agree that given a kernel-devel package it would be
> > possible to build any correctly written module without including the
> > files again in /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build, but that is the
> > officially documented way of doing it and it would be a shame to
> > break the official convention. The alternative would be a symlink of
> > course, but then you're forcing everyone who wants to do a quick
> > module build to include the stuff needed for all architectures
> > (since that's what's in the hypothetical kernel-devel package).
> 
> But that is exactly the point of discussion. A kernel-devel package
> should be per kernel version, arch and flavour, not a
> conglomerate. That way you both have less bloat and it is universal to
> be extended to arbitrary kernel, e.g. ones in future errata, custom
> kernels and so on.
> 
> The all-errata-in-one package would need extra maintainance from a
> central place, and would only allow building for the given set of
> kernels.
> 
> So with kernel-2.6.8-9.8.7.i686.rpm you get a symlink
> 
> /lib/modules/2.6.8-9.8.7/build -> /usr/src/kernel-headers/2.6.8-9.8.7.i686
> 
> And kernel-devel-2.6.8-9.8.7.i686.rpm contains the headers in
> /usr/src/kernel-headers/2.6.8-9.8.7.i686
> 
> A kernel module src.rpm BuildRequires kernel-devel >= 2.6.0, you drop
> one (or more) of the various kernel-devel packages and point the
> rpmbuild to it like
> 
> rpmbuild --rebuild --define 'kernel 2.6.8-9.8.7' --target i686 foo-kmdl-1.2.3-4.5.6.src.rpm
> (perhaps the target option could even be skipped)
> 
> and this builds
> 
> kernel-module-foo-2.6.8-9.8.7-1.2.3-4.5.6.i686.rpm
> 
> That's all, folks!
> -- 
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net


I like this idea.  I like this idea a lot.  I think it makes the most
since.

It would be less long term maintenance to have the kernel-devel package
a subpackage of kernel rather than maintaining a separate kernel-devel
package no matter what collection of kernel headers it contains.

Jack

-- 
Jack Neely <slack at quackmaster.net>
Realm Linux Administration and Development
PAMS Computer Operations at NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list