Where can I get kernel-source pacakge for kernel-2.6.8-1.541?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:59:28 -0400, Luke Taylor <ekul.taylor at gmail.com> wrote:
> This kernel source thing is very annoying.  You should not have to
> build an rpm to have access to the fedora patched kernel.

I'm not sure how this is more annoying than having to use src.rpms for
other sourcecode.

Why do you need access the to full source of the patched kernel? I can
only think of one valid reason i've seen to be annoyed, but only if
you packaging addons across architectures.

addon module can be built locally using solely the /lib/modules/`uname
-r`/build tree
provided by the binary kernel rpm. 

If you want to apply your own patch to the source code, i see no
reason why the kernel should be treated differently than any other
component in the distro. If I want to patch freetype or openssh I
certaintly have to use the src.rpm and apply a new patch and rebuild,
why should the kernel be any different in this regard?

> Here's my question -- does FC3 use a vanilla kernel? 

No there are patches... but the 2.6.x fedora kernels have far fewer
patches than the older 2.4.x kernels.

> would just be easier to download the tar from kernel.org and cp the
> config found in /boot

Easier? Depends on what you have learned how to do. But I will say
this. Fedora kernels are patched for a reason. A lot of the applied
patches are bugfixes for things like drivers and filesystems, it might
be easier for you to compile a vanilla kernel because you don't
understand how to use rpm at the moment. But I garuntee you its going
to be harder for you to get ANY low level bug you find to be looked at
by a fedora developer if you are using a custom kernel.  Sort of
depends on why you need the src code really, and whether you want to
reapply all those fedora specific patches.

-jef"its amazing how many new tricks an old dog can learn, when a
cattle prod is used"spaleta