FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included
Scot L. Harris
webid at cfl.rr.com
Fri Oct 15 20:25:40 UTC 2004
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 16:18, Ken Johanson wrote:
> > 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"
So how many other mailing lists have you lost this flame war on?
(sorry for feeding the troll! Really!)
--
Scot L. Harris
webid at cfl.rr.com
Regardless of whether a mission expands or contracts, administrative
overhead continues to grow at a steady rate.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list