Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Paul Howarth <paul city-fan org>]

John Hodrien wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Tom Yates wrote:
> > i'm sorry if this is a really dim question, but in what sense is the 
> > kernel source not available?  i have the kernel-source package 
> > installed, and it's stuck about a quarter of a gig of files under 
> > /usr/src/linux-2.6.5-1.358. they look a lot like the source of such 
> > kernels as i've built recently.
> >
> > am i completely missing some important point?  is this not the kernel 
> > source?
>
>
> No, AFAIK you're missing nothing.  The kernel source is provided, and he's
> just having a big rant about nothing.
>
> Dim questions are usually the ones that are worth asking...

Perhaps he's referring to the upcoming FC3, which will not be shipping with a 
kernel-sourcecode RPM (though the kernel source will still be available in the 
kernel src.rpm of course, albeit not in /usr/src/linux-*)?

As Jakob mentioned earlier, properly-written modules should be built against 
the headers in /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build rather than /usr/src; it may well 
be that lots of module providers don't currently do this despite the fact that 
it's been the standard way of doing things for some time time now, but if the 
module writers can't keep up with the build system, they're hardly likely to 
be able to keep up with changes in the underlying kernel either.

Paul.