On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:23:38 +0200, Axel Thimm <axel.thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:20:32AM -0400, Build System wrote: > > kernel-2.6.7-1.448 > > * Mon Jun 21 2004 Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > - make kernel-doc and kernel-sourcecode builds independent of eachother > > - disable kernel-sourcecode builds entirely, we'll be replacing it with documentation > > on how to use the src.rpm instead for building your own kernel. > > We just recently had the discussion of how many documented processes > will get broken with the kernel-source -> kernel-sourcecode > change. Not having it at all doesn't really improve that. ;) > > What's the idea behind this? And what about people building external > kernel modules? For the reasons outlined in the previous thread on > this /lib/modules/`uname -r` is not adequate for that. Having the > kernel-source package change its name is one thing we can adapt > to (even though it was not necessary). Having it disappear for the > face of earth is another :( > > Please, get it back! > -- > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net While I'm far from an expert, the headers needed to build 3rd party modules are now packaged with the kernel proper (that's one reason it's taking so long to install a new kernel nowadays). The kernel-sourcecode package is sort of redundant as the actual source is in the kernel*.src.rpm anyway, but can be built (as i did) by editing the kernel-2.6.spec and changing the line near the top to say "build sourcecode=1" instead of 0. -- Chris Kloiber
