> But that is exactly the point of discussion. A kernel-devel package > should be per kernel version, arch and flavour, not a > conglomerate. That way you both have less bloat and it is universal to > be extended to arbitrary kernel, e.g. ones in future errata, custom > kernels and so on. You have said this over and over but not provided any explanation on why this is so. "should be" is your personal opinion. less bloat: installing four kernel rpms worth of content to build for four combinations of kernel takes over 50 MB. I don't see how that's less bloat. A tradeoff symlinked forest like I have only adds 1.5 MB on top of one kernel installed, which compared to 50 MB is a very good tradeoff. On top of that, spec files can *still* be written *without any additional -devel package* for the single-kernel user case. I consider your solution more bloat. "universal to be extended to arbitrary kernel": maybe you should give an example, because I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. I don't see how Red Hat would be suddenly unable to have a one-size-fits-all devel package for all kernels they release as a set, since they are releasing the set. Same goes for outside people. Seems like a strawman's argument to me. > The all-errata-in-one package would need extra maintainance from a > central place, and would only allow building for the given set of > kernels. I don't see how creating *four* rpms for four kernels as compared to *one* devel rpm for four kernels is extra maintenance. People releasing their custom kernel in the wild should take up responsibility and provide the same mechanism as upstream does. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> and it looks so pretty all those tiny bright lights calling my name <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
