On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:28:28PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:18, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> This rather
> fundamental change has not even been pre announced. This has nothing to
> do with the way a community project should work.
which fundamental change? the fact that you can't use
kernel-source(code) to build external modules? That has been the case
for all the 2.6 rpms, and is a result from the 2.6 buildsystem changes
more than anything else, and was there even before the very first fc2
test release.
Hoe do you explain that nevertheless well working kernel module rpms
have been built out of kernel-source(code) for 2.6.6-1.435,
2.6.6-1.427 and 2.6.5-1.358? Just browse though
http://ATrpms.net/dist/fc2/
Granted the kernel-source(code) package in its virgin form is not
adequate, one needs to copy/mrproper/oldconfig/prepare it, but at
least there is an rpm to pull is as an dependency.
How would you write a specfile that needs to rpmbuild -bp
kernel-....src.rpm to get at the headers?
kernel module building requires prepared kernel headers for a certain
.config. Let's put them to /usr/src/kernel-headers/2.6.7-1.499-i686/
instead of /lib/modules/2.6.7-1.499/build and have the former into
kernel-headers-2.6.7-1.499.i686.rpm and have the latter be a symlink
to it (or call the kernel-header rpms kernel-devel).
Installation of kernel-headers-2.6.7-1.499.i686.rpm could even create
/usr/src/linux and /usr/src/linux-2.6.7 symlinks in %post to ensure
maximum backwards compatibility (only against tha latest installed
kernel-header rpm).
apt/yum/update would have to treak kernel-headers like the kernels,
e.g. allow multiple occurences.
That makes everybody happy, or not?
P.S. I would _not_ provide kernel-source for kernel-headers packages,
because they do not provide the full source and kernel module src.rpm
could be requiring full source.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net