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

Re: Re: future kernel module rpm situation (was: kernel-source vs. kernel-sourcecode (please revert))



On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:20:07 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
<strange 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



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