FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Stuart Sears]

On Sat 16 October 2004 00:36, Ken Johanson wrote:
> Oh goody!!! - I cant wait for the next person to ping in, saying that
> I'm wrong without reading the rationale arguments... not
I'll bite
:-)
>
> I'll defend this perpetually if needed, so please follow another
> poster's advise about not responding anymore. Truth is, I am getting
> tired of explaining it *each* and *every* time someones implies that
> having the source is basically trivial (in need for retrieval). Besides
> the thread is the hugest Ive ever started, and is hard for anyone to
> follow - does anyone really to keep gratifying that??? Ha Ha Ha.
I'll agree with you that the thread is now impossible to follow, but if I may 
summarise, as I understand it:

1. you are not happy because the kernel *source* rpm has been moved to the 
SRPMS as opposed to being on the binary install discs?

2. You have given many arguments as to why it should be there (the binary 
discs),
*Some* of which appeared to be statements akin to
'the kernel source is not in the distribution any more'
 - which is inaccurate and misleading, as the rpm just isn't going to be on 
the i386.isos, but on the SRPMS (where, logically, it belongs). This will 
also be the case for 'official' RHEL releases. The SRPM isos are part of the 
distro and are available as channels through up2date (aka yum).

3. You have been presented with many arguments as to why the situation should 
be the way it is and have refused to acknowledge any of them. This is, of 
course, your right, but both sides of the argument are getting tedious.

4. You are never going to accept any reasoning for doing things the FC3 way, 
and the FC3 release is incredibly unlikely to be altered to accommodate your 
personal preferences.

So can we all just leave it now?

Stuart


-- 
Stuart Sears RHCE, RHCX
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur