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

[Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:01:29PM +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> > > 
> > > If you don't use the headers that come with the kernel binary, things
> > > will break, now or in the future. 
> > 
> > What headers? RedHat and Fedora don't ship any kernel headers in kernels
> > 2.4.x. And the only files under /lib/modules/`uname -r`/ are object files,
> > the modules.
> 
> and a symlink to the headers. For me that's the same thing, that point to
> the right headers.

A symlink to the stock headers from the kernel-source rpm.
I'd rather have it like it is now for 2.6.

> > > The fact that you could get away with it in the past does not mean that
> > > it will remain working in the future.
> > 
> > Maybe there was no other way in the past?
> 
> That statement is not correct. For example Doug Ledford Device Driver Kit
> proves that wrong.

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.

There are several references to kernel-source that will end up obsoleted
and will confuse users. Messages in mailing lists, installation
documentation, etc.

But only when applied to Fedora Core > 2, as AFAIK, FC3 will be the first
distro to do that (and maybe the only one?). Let's hope packagers (not rpm
speaking) will have the heart to add a note regarding FC3+.


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?

Regards,
Luciano Rocha