FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:45:02PM -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> 
>>I meant to say that its desirable to get the incremental updates using 
>>any lightweight (or not) methods, say CVS, without downloading a whole 
>>new rpm (source tree) for each update - or even becoming dependent on rpm...
> 
> 
> This is a branch into a different argument -- if you don't want to use RPM,
> why do you want a binary RPM of the kernel source?
> 
> But really, I think you _do_ want to use RPM, and just don't know it yet. :)
> 
> 
> 
My only desire is to get the exact source that built the kernel (w/o 
manual labor or version-interpolation) - an rpm is fine, so is tar, etc. 
But once I have it I have no motivation for repackaging it. It will 
likely live on just one machine.

Opinions vary on how to maintain/distro kernels across multiple 
machines, but given that most machines dont have the same hardware (even 
in large enterprise server-rooms) or even roles (need for a given 
module), and given that its a just good feeling to have a build-able 
source tree living on every machine (space is not an issue for me 
lately), I cant make much use of rpm for kernel management - I agree 
theres some great capabilities in it though for managing versions in 
applications though. Maybe I'll find the kernel beauty in it too, 
someday. Right now I'm more worried about its inital availability, rpm 
or no. :-)