On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:53:02AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 24, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > kernel-source(code) is needed for a migration phase > > Err... You shouldn't need kernel-source to build kernel modules. The > right procedure to build kernel modules is to use /lib/modules/`uname > -r`/build. No, it's not, that is the procedure for building kernels modules against an installed kernel (and even running kernel in your syntax). And as it has been pointed out at too many parts of this thread that kernels for different arches and their headers collide, so you will never be able to build in the same box a kernel module for i586 running the same kernel in i686 (yes, you can in a chroot, don't bother mentioning, that is not the point). And if kernel-source(code) were to be phased out it _has_ to be preannounced (and discussed not dictated!). You don't throw something into rawhide and hope people to understand the deeper meaning of this. > This works with 2.6, so you had the entire FC2 development cycle to > migrate. It's time to move on, and leave behind those who didn't > migrate in a timely manner, wouldn't you think? So, leave behind everybody? Who _did_ migrate to the Unknown Plan of God (TM) in a timely manner? The 50.000 Red Hat kernel-source related pages? The dozen of professional kernel module writers? Any ISV? Red Hat itself? Oh, yes, Red Hat never builds kernel modules, so it is not affected. Right, noone did. And in fact just days before the kernel-source(code) was dumped, there was a discussion on its name change reveiling the wide use of kernel-source(code). Back then the only comment was "don't rely on implementation", only to blown the "implementation" a few days away. What ignorance is this, when people already point out that the name change will make problems to continue to remove it altogether promising replacment in form of future documentation? That is neither transparent, open, an announced migration, or sensible to do in any way. If this is a community project it has to involve the community, not pester it. The current attitude is only driving people away. Stop the social experiments! Please revert this, until we find a real solution, can you? P.S. Note that _I_ can still cope with changes like these (until now, let's see what will come next). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPLGLG8OnbP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
