tor, 24.06.2004 kl. 03.42 skrev Jeremy Katz: > On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 16:01 -0700, alan wrote: > > It is going to make life more difficult for those who need to modify their > > kernel for whatever reason. > > The same argument could be made for every other package we ship. > > > This does not appear to be a useful change. It makes it more difficult to > > get to the source code, not less. > > > > Why was this change made? It seems counter-productive to me. > > It makes the kernel just like _every other package in the distribution_. But it's not... > There's no reason why building a custom kernel should be considered to > be any different from building, eg, a custom glibc. I'd bet good money on needing access to kernel source to build something (typically a driver, e.g. for the NVidia and centrino drivers) or switch on-off some options being a couple of orders of magnitude more common than building a custom glibc. > The "it's always > been that way" argument doesn't really fly. Especially since once you > understand making the changes from within the package, that's actually > easier, more reproducible and makes your life easier for maintaining the > changes you want to make over the long term (or even in working towards > getting those changes included in the upstream kernel source. I fail to see how it makes it easier to send patches upstream... by making it too annoying to work with, maybe? I see how splitting off the kernel-sourcecode rpm makes it harder to keep in sync than having it in the main rpm, so why not just go back to that instead?
