> > > > Personally, I think that having a kernel-devel package that puts the > > headers somewhere with both the `uname -r` and arch as part of the path > > would be useful. > > This all sounds very much like looking for a solution after the fact. > > Set aside the technical issues this "accomplished facts" policy does not > speak very well for the willingness to involve the community in decision > making, or even involving the community in discussing technical issues > and notifying possible problems before a change is made. This rather > fundamental change has not even been pre announced. This has nothing to > do with the way a community project should work. I have a tendency to agree here. There are a lot of community members that care a lot, and are far more anal about issues like this, than the people working at Red Hat which (and I respect their work) sometimes have to figure out quick and dirty hacks to problems and don't really think about it well enough to come up with something that doesn't give us all headaches after the fact. It only needs a little bit of discussion *before* a huge sweeping change is made ,and that little bit of discussion is *exactly* what Fedora should be doing. If it can't manage that, it's pretty much doomed as a project, isn't it ? Case in point - us packagers would have suggested a system where the kernel installs in a unique location so that multiple kernels were parallel-installable. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> If I could talk I'd tell you If I could smile I'd let you know You are far and away my most imaginary friend <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
