Re: No more kernel-source(code) ??? (was: rawhide report: 20040623 changes)

[Aaron Bennett <aaron bennett olin edu>]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> . I think having a kernel-devel subpackage
> makes a lot of sense, especially if the goal is to treat the kernel
> package similarly to other packages. I dont need to compile modules on
> most of the computers I admin, so I dont need the associated bits.
>
>  

Sorry also for coming late to this thread, but I'd like to endorse 
kernel-devel as well.  It could provide the /lib/modules/$(uname 
-r)/build stuff as well as the /usr/src/linux stuff which is currently 
in kernel-source.  Also it could make sure that /lib/modules/$(uname 
-r)/build is a symlink to the appropriate place in /usr/src/linux which 
would make building legacy modules easier.

So, my proposal is:

Fold kernel-source into kernel-devel; make kernel-devel have Provides: 
kernel-source to make BuildRequires in older kernel src rpms easier to 
live with, and keep it as part of Fedora Core.



--
Aaron Bennett
UNIX Administrator
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering