FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Thanks, ... ne..

This may be the first defensive reason for not including it that I've 
heard, I think. :-)

So now I'll re-chew what I'm sure other lists have already debated (why? 
because it matters):

1) Isn't it imperative - mission critical -- that kernel source be 
prominently included on the install discs, *since* kernel and modules 
compilations account for compilations far *far more* than any other one 
project? No other item's source is more likely to be needed on *every* 
users system, even by a longshot!!! What if I need to upgrade to SMP - 
should I download kernel*.rpm or 4*SRC.ISOs from redhat?? I'd be better 
to use kernel.org (but risk destabilizing a working system due to 
versioning/dependencies/redhat-isms), or to have the source already 
there. Need a scsi module or raid support in the image? Grab from 
redhat? Thats ludicrous, sorry to say. No prebuilt kernel will ever 
match a power users needs, so the orig source should be prominently 
included.

So my best options are(?):

	a) download from kernel.org (risk destabilize/versioning issues)
	b) search redhat for a prebuilt kernel that meets my specific needs
	c) search redhat for same-version kernel-source rpm, download.
	d) download 4 SRC ISOs to get guaranteed original build source rpm.

c) seems like the best option to me but is far from convenient.

2) I think I see enough room on the install discs to include the kernel 
rpm... so why not?

Marching on.. :-)

ken

ne... wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2004 at 11:51, Ken Johanson in a soothing rage wrote:
> [...]
> 
> 
>>Well, if I am to believe others' (including Linus) claims about Redhat 
>>(and I am), then the reasons for not including the source with the 
>>installers are *at least* highly suspect - or a just a forgone 
>>conclusion - that there's a purposeful dumbing-down (weakening) or 
>>discouraging of the kernel open-ness and availability to power users, or 
>>perhaps discrepancies between the (open vs obfuscated) source, binaries, 
>>and dependencies). And interoperability is also suspect with Redhat.
>>
>>Not including the source to the *kernel itself* is a really, really 
>>slippery slope.
> 
> And now for the most controversial view...
> 
> The kernel is only package I know off in the distribution that had
> it's source included in the binary isos and the source isos. This
> has now being rectified. All source can now be found in the source
> isos. Some bloat has being removed from the binary isos. Now if only
> we can get $MOST_HATED_RPM dropped from the distribution.
> 
> N.Emile...