No more kernel-source(code) ???

[Brian Gerst]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2004, Aaron Bennett <aaron.bennett at olin.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Sorry also for coming late to this thread, but I'd like to endorse
>>kernel-devel as well.
> 
> 
> I'd like that too.  There's no reason to keep headers around if I'm
> not going to build modules, and don't *want* to accidentally build
> modules.
> 
> It shouldn't contain full kernel sources, though (they're available
> elsewhere), only whatever is needed to build kernel modules.
> 
> This will not only save space, but also install time, since hardlinks
> will likely run faster if it only looks at the modules tree.
> 
> The only (minor) issue with splitting kernel-devel out of kernel is
> that up2date should probably be taught to not upgrade this package by
> default, otherwise you may end up being unable to build modules for
> the running kernel just because you up2dated your box to a newer
> kernel release, which brought in a new kernel-devel.
> 

You would just need to reconfigure up2date to do an install instead of 
update, ie.:

pkgsToInstallNotUpdate=kernel;kernel-devel;

--
				Brian Gerst