FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

> 
> I'll agree with you that the thread is now impossible to follow, but if I may 
> summarise, as I understand it:
> 
> 1. you are not happy because the kernel *source* rpm has been moved to the 
> SRPMS as opposed to being on the binary install discs?

Yes

> 
> 2. You have given many arguments as to why it should be there (the binary 
> discs),
> *Some* of which appeared to be statements akin to
> 'the kernel source is not in the distribution any more'
>  - which is inaccurate and misleading, as the rpm just isn't going to be on 
> the i386.isos, but on the SRPMS (where, logically, it belongs). 

Then please read my prior posts - I have always said either "not on the 
install discs" or "not installable by default" (ala the app add/remove 
program) - many time I have used shorthand to say not included. This 
thread is too large to fully qualify it anymore.

This will
> also be the case for 'official' RHEL releases. The SRPM isos are part of the 
> distro and are available as channels through up2date (aka yum).
> 

This is okay - for the disks that are physically shipped and not 
downloaded or require network access. You have confirmed what other have 
denied, though. Thanks.

> 3. You have been presented with many arguments as to why the situation should 
> be the way it is and have refused to acknowledge any of them. 

Definitely wrong. Please read prior posts.

This is, of
> course, your right, but both sides of the argument are getting tedious.
> 
> 4. You are never going to accept any reasoning for doing things the FC3 way, 
> and the FC3 release is incredibly unlikely to be altered to accommodate your 
> personal preferences.
> 
> So can we all just leave it now?
> 
> Stuart
> 
>