Follow-up - kernel.src Issue

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 11:17 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:

[snip]

> OK, that eliminates manually applying the patches. However, it seems
> like considerably more work than just spinning out a kernel-source.rpm
> from src.rpm. Moreover, it lacks the portability of kernel-source.rpm.
> Again, I'm NOT asking for a distribution of kernel-source; Just
> retaining the options.

  See my earlier post where I discuss why I think kernel-source[code]
has always been weird ;-).  It is, of course, my own opinion.

> I just don't understand why the change was made. It fixed what weren't
> broke.

  Well there is one problem with that statement: because the kernel-
source[code] rpm is not built, AFAIK, for any of Red Hat's builds
(neither FC nor RHEL), that spec file code will, if it has not already,
suffer from bit rot.

  Which means another thread every month about why kernel-sourcecode
should or shouldn't be re-introduced.

  Which will mean more people pissed off and more bruised egos.

  But I digress...

  In my view, since there is no kernel-source[code] 'binary' rpm
packaged included in the distribution, then it should be left up to the
maintainer of the kernel rpm whether or not to maintain, ignore, or
remove that spec file code.  It seems the maintainer has spoken.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets