On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:20:07 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha <strange@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, so have I. I got mixed in the discussion and didn't explain myself > correctly. The "thing" that gets broken most visibly is the documentation > and requirements for external packages to build. And I think the gist of the rebuttal argument is that for the 2.6 kernels the documentation is already 'broken' in that if its refering to kernel-source or kernel-sourcecode.. The point of Arjan's posts is that kernel module building shouldn't be using kernel-source rpm at all, it should be using the files in a directory like /lib/modules/2.6.6-1.435/build/ to build against. For kernel module building documentation and build scripts, this rpm package name change has exposed a bug that was already present. If I'm understanding Arjan correctly, all references to kernel-source in regard 2.6 kernel module building is a bug and all instructions should be fixed so that people aren't told to use kernel-source OR kernel-sourcecode for module building. Atleast for building kernels for the running kernel. What people who build external modules packages need to do now..to do it correctly is a bit less clear..since they have to build modules for the save kernel version but different arches. I still don't understand how thats suppose to work out, but its also more of a developer/packager issue and has a higher bar of 'understanding' than simple end-user/sysadmin issues like building needed modules for the kernel you are running. > There are several references to kernel-source that will end up obsoleted > and will confuse users. Messages in mailing lists, installation > documentation, etc. there is installation documentation for fedora? > Now, with this out of the way, forgive me for digging a little deeper: the > change is due to a limitation on rpm, right? Couldn't we just fix rpm? Could 'we'? Are you volunteering to help with rpm development? -jef
