[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included



On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:18 -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > # wget -c ftp://$YOURMIRROR/$PATH/kernel*rpm
> Again diversion from the point using a wortkaround solution that doesnt 
> fit every bill. You think I didnt know that? 

Well, your posting the putative need to download 2.6GB of SRPMS to get
just the kernel source implied very clearly that you either did *not*
know that, or were just very short on imagination to describe why you
disagree with the choices Fedora Core 3 has made. It's a very poor
example: you say download 2.6GB, you get "wget" as a response.

Either that, or you were just being dramatic and inflammatory, which
makes it a hell of a lot harder to carry on a reasonable discussion.

> And time, right? Surely this cant be labeled a same-story for the 95% of 
> the apps that are still on those distro disks that people dont use -- 
> many of which are needed, far, far, far, FAR less then the kernel 
> source. Do you dare me to name examples????? Again, nice defensive arg 
> but not sale here.
> 

Your argument of "there appears to be space" held a downside, which I
pointed out as being that we already have far too *much* stuff on those
disks. Answering me by agreeing that there's too much stuff doesn't
really get you very far... it certainly does not prove my point wrong.

If you want to suggest the removal of some other packages to get the
kernel SRPM included in the binary disks, be my guest. If you want to
suggest that the kernel SRPM simply be duplicated (included in both a
source disk and a binary disk), be my guest.

What is holding you back from making that suggestion (constructively)
and in the right forum which is likely fedora-devel, fedora-test, and
Bugzilla?

> Yes, and I assert that things on those disk as far less deserving of 
> being on there than the very heartbeat itself. ...... Or do you not 
> agree.. please say yes or no.
> 

No. I think the answer is "the two issues are not related." You want the
binary disks to include the kernel SRPM, go ahead and suggest that. You
want other stuff removed (in case someone who actually works on this
stuff says they booted it because of too much other stuff), go ahead and
suggest that too. No relation.

Only three of the roughly 200 systems on which I have ever worked needed
that "heartbeat" we know as the kernel source. I agree that the freedom
and liberty involved in having the kernel source is nearly the lifeblood
of Linux. I do not agree that it's worth any fuss at all when that
source code moves to a SRPM package on another disk of the same set.

I have come to the conclusion that you are making a storm in a paper
cup, to translate a local saying, and that you are letting off steam for
a choice made in packaging which does not suit you and with which you
disagree. Fine, you have that right.

But since I have also come to the conclusion that I disagree with you
and that I don't have the time, patience, expertise or interest
necessary to convince you, I'm going to drop off this thread.

Good luck,

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz simpaticus com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]