FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Thanks Jakub, its good to hear a Redhat employee offering help. You also 
avoided being inflammatory, showing tremendous constraint -- I admire that.

I truly appreciate the module build advise - it benefits all of us. 
Thank you.

In regard to original my complaint (ignoring its cause; module 
compilation and default header paths), can you explain Redhat's 
reasoning for not including the kernel source *in* the distro? -- just 
for the sake of argument for someone wanting to do the usual.. slim down 
the kernel, or say, build special scsi drivers into the image. etc.

Yet you did also mention that kernel rpm *is* available; is that 
included on the main install disks - or would a user have to have 
network access, search for it, and check versions (which supposedly dont 
always jive from what another post mentioned about 2.6.9 inclusions)? Is 
the kernel-rpm placed somewhere on the add-remove app that I just didnt 
see (I checked under "development tools")?

Thanks for responding,
-Ken

Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 08:30:39AM -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> 
>>Actually Lew, your's was the least re-inflamatory response - but it too 
>>missed the point - that the kernel source needs to be included.
> 
> 
> They are included, see kernel-2.6.*.src.rpm.
> 
> 
>>The "solution" mentioned earlier doesnt facilitate building custom 
>>kernel/module slices, and too many module providers *do* make against 
>>/usr/src/linux.
>>
>>Its just community standard for the source to be provided, though not 
>>for Redhat.
> 
> 
> The standard place for files needed to build third party modules
> is /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build.  kernel.org kernels promote this location
> for several years already.
> To build 2.6 kernel modules, you just need to do:
> make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build M=`pwd` modules
> assuming current directory contains kbuild compatible Makefile and the
> module you want to build.
> 
> 	Jakub
>