On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:29:28AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > > and expect it to be there for whatever arcane method. Just removing it
> > > > without openly discussing it first smacks less of a community project
> > >
> > > we're having the discussion now right?
> >
> > after the fact.
> >
> > Not exactly likely to go back to the way it was, is it?
>
> rawhide is for experimenting and for solliciting comments and see if and why
> people care. It's 10x easier to discuss a change when the result is visible
> instead of theoretical discussions about something that sort of kinda will be like this.
So, what does your social experiment yield, obviously some people do
care? Will kernel-source(code) return to remain until we find a true
solution [*]?
[*] like a kernel-headers subpackage soving headers into
/usr/src/kernel-headers/2.6.7-1.499-i686/ and having
/lib/modules/2.6.7-1.499/build be a symlink to there?
kernel module builders are happy because they can build against
cold kernels (and a simple BuildRequires: kernel-headers will be
enough!), users will still have the symlink.
Even if this or a similar solution will be sanctionized as the
best idea since qubically sliced bread, kernel-source(code) is
needed for a migration phase, so please put it back!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZ6rrB0m4iQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
