On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 03:34:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 15:20, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:01:29PM +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you don't use the headers that come with the kernel binary, things > > > > > will break, now or in the future. > > > > > > > > What headers? RedHat and Fedora don't ship any kernel headers in kernels > > > > 2.4.x. And the only files under /lib/modules/`uname -r`/ are object files, > > > > the modules. > > > > > > and a symlink to the headers. For me that's the same thing, that point to > > > the right headers. > > > > A symlink to the stock headers from the kernel-source rpm. > > I'd rather have it like it is now for 2.6. > > Oh I absolutely agree. The 2.4 thing was a mess. > Thankfully 2.6 kbuild is a big improvement and the current situation is > possible. > > > > > That statement is not correct. For example Doug Ledford Device Driver Kit > > > proves that wrong. > > > > 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. > > Yes that got broken with FC2 original release. *NOT* with this update. > When changing major kernel revisions I personally consider it more or > less fair game to include all that documentation for older kernels. > > > 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? > > yum/apt/up2date. All three of them. Not apt, I have quite often switched arch with apt. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgptBpq42X7na.pgp
Description: PGP signature
