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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> Is there something wrong with using the headers from

yes

> 
> make mrproper
> modify EXTRAVERSION in Makefile to reflect target arch/flavour
> cp -a configs/<my flavour and arch>.config .config
> make oldconfig_nonint x2 & make dep or make nonint_oldconfig & make prepare
> make -s include/linux/version.h

you assume that the makefile is the only thing changed between
kernel-sourcecode and what the binary kernel rpms use. That is the case
TODAY. It wasn't the case some time ago where the makefile wasn't changed at
all. And it won't be the case in the future where I expect more changes to
happen.

THIS IS AN IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL. DO NOT DEPEND ON THIS.

> not violationg rules or breaking anything. These are the usual steps
> required and recommended for building external kernel modules adapted

NO THEY ARE NOT THE RECOMMENED STEPS
nor are they the required steps.


> Would something break the above? It should not. At least there is no
> sign upstream considers changing kbuild again in this respect, and the
> rpms are under your control.

Yes and I am trying to get it into your head that these implementation
details WILL change. DO NOT DEPEND ON THIS. There is no need, it's wrong.
Just don't.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040615/586dd710/attachment.sig>