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

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



On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:29:34PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > these are ALL wrong then with the 2.6 kernel and with the 2.6 rpms. Really.
> > > Removing custom and all those hacks are *WRONG*. Even on 2.4.
> > > Any kernel module that does that is *BROKEN* build wise. Extremely broken.
> > 
> > Practice says otherwise. kernel module rpms for 2.4 and 2.6 are out
> > there and are in use by several thousands of users without any
> > problems regarding kernel infrastructure.
> 
> they are still broken and violating the rules.

Which rules? They are perfectly legal in the sense of external kernel
module building. Only the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/updates folder needs
to be resurrected for kernels 2.6.x/modules-init which is underway.

> > > In FC2 that uses ZERO files from kernel-source (unlike FC1 where that was a
> > > symlink into kernel-source).
> > > Any other method WILL eventually result in non-working modules.
> > 
> > They do work.
> 
> for some value of work. I can guarantee you that this will break within the
> next half year or so.

Can you explain that? Why should that break and where (kernel upstream
or rpm-wise) and what can be done to prevent this? If it is your
choice please don't break it. You would be removing appreciated added
value and would piss off all kernel-level ISVs and repos including
fedora.us.

> > google). Could you please revert that, and have it fixed in yum
> > instead?
> 
> no I can't really.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp00059.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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