FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> 
>>project? No other item's source is more likely to be needed on *every* 
>>users system, even by a longshot!!! What if I need to upgrade to SMP - 
>>should I download kernel*.rpm or 4*SRC.ISOs from redhat?? I'd be better 
> 
> 
> Uh, you should download the singled kernel-smp-*.rpm. Or more likely, you've
> already got it installed since your SMP capable system was autodetected at
> install time.
> 
If I installed with a single proc, then upgraded? Or vise versa?
> 
> 
>>to use kernel.org (but risk destabilizing a working system due to 
>>versioning/dependencies/redhat-isms), or to have the source already 
> 
> 
> Risk destabilizing your system by using a kernel which, with the new kernel
> development process, is _designed_ to be tested and modified by vendors for
> Real World use.
> 
Agreed - thats the purpose - but if a system is installed for any type 
of production or semi-production use, admins may not be willing to take 
the risk (and the reality is the world is full of production systems, 
inherited or not, running free distros, so their legitimacy as such 
would be a separate off topic, besides this problem relates to any 
distro free or otherwise)
> 
> 
>>there. Need a scsi module or raid support in the image? Grab from 
>>redhat? Thats ludicrous, sorry to say. 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't need the kernel source to build new modules.

Sigh. I didnt say modules, rebuild the image (kernel) :-(

> 
> 
>>                                     No prebuilt kernel will ever 
>>match a power users needs, so the orig source should be prominently 
>>included.
> 
> 
> I know dozens of power users who routinely and happily use the prebuilt
> modular kernels almost exclusively.
> 
I do too, and I know of an equal amount who run servers exposed to the 
internet, acting as routers, etc, that need to have the image trimmed down.
> 
> 
>>So my best options are(?):
>>	a) download from kernel.org (risk destabilize/versioning issues)
>>	b) search redhat for a prebuilt kernel that meets my specific needs
>>	c) search redhat for same-version kernel-source rpm, download.
>>	d) download 4 SRC ISOs to get guaranteed original build source rpm.
>>c) seems like the best option to me but is far from convenient.
>>2) I think I see enough room on the install discs to include the kernel 
>>rpm... so why not?
> 
> 
> I really and truly don't see the fuss. 

I dont either - I say its trivial to just include it on the installer 
discs. Its the most sound way to do it - no versioning, no networking or 
downloading or md5summing or biting our nails. It just works. So 
beautifully.

Why isn't having the kernel source in
> a _source_ RPM better? It's more handy to have your modified kernel in the
> form of an RPM anyway, _especially_ if you're a power user.
> 
> Also, I don't think you're likely to want to get the ISO images anyway --
> you probably will want the latest update package if available, since kernel
> update packages are both inevitable and not released lightly.
> 
> 
This I fully agree on, that updates are usually needed anyway, except 
that we should be able to do incremental upgrades to the original source 
tree, not have to grab entire source trees or prebuilt, one-size-fits 
all binaries, at the moment we realize "hey - this distro didnt come 
with the src tree - let me donload it or burn it onto disc"