On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:20:07 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
<strange(a)nsk.no-ip.org> wrote:
Yes, so have I. I got mixed in the discussion and didn't explain
myself
correctly. The "thing" that gets broken most visibly is the documentation
and requirements for external packages to build.
And I think the gist of the rebuttal argument is that for the 2.6 kernels
the documentation is already 'broken' in that if its refering to
kernel-source or
kernel-sourcecode.. The point of Arjan's posts is that kernel module building
shouldn't be using kernel-source rpm at all, it should be using the
files in a directory
like /lib/modules/2.6.6-1.435/build/ to build against. For kernel
module building documentation and build scripts, this rpm package name
change has exposed a bug that was already present. If I'm
understanding Arjan correctly, all references to kernel-source in
regard 2.6 kernel module building is a bug and all instructions should
be fixed so that people aren't told to use kernel-source OR
kernel-sourcecode for module building. Atleast for building kernels
for the running kernel. What people who build external modules
packages need to do now..to do it correctly is a bit less clear..since
they have to build modules for the save kernel version but different
arches.
I still don't understand how thats suppose to work out, but its also
more of a developer/packager issue and has a higher bar of
'understanding' than simple end-user/sysadmin issues like building
needed modules for the kernel you are running.
There are several references to kernel-source that will end up
obsoleted
and will confuse users. Messages in mailing lists, installation
documentation, etc.
there is installation documentation for fedora?
Now, with this out of the way, forgive me for digging a little
deeper: the
change is due to a limitation on rpm, right? Couldn't we just fix rpm?
Could 'we'? Are you volunteering to help with rpm development?
-jef