On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:04:24PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi Arjan,
>
> > which fundamental change? the fact that you can't use
> > kernel-source(code) to build external modules? That has been the case
> > for all the 2.6 rpms, and is a result from the 2.6 buildsystem changes
> > more than anything else, and was there even before the very first fc2
> > test release.
>
> I would call the fact that you drop the kernel-source(code) rpm
^^ propose to ^^
> altogether, from which people have been building custom kernels for
> years a "fundamental change".
yes and that's why it need to be testable, tested, discussed etc etc and
that is why it's not done irreversibly. I am still behind the proposal to
drop the package assuming we can document custom kernel building well
enough. (Both in the release notes and in kernel-doc I guess, maybe even a
text file in /usr/src/linux-<foo>/ or a script there). We're at 4 binary
cd's already, if we're not careful about bloat we'll be at 12 in no time.
> Also, the compiling for different architecture issue should have been
> addressed before making the change.
Several solutions have been floated on this list over the last few months.
The one I personally like most is the concept that the openafs rpm, that was
posted here the other week, uses. That solution has the quite big advantage
of allowing users of this approach to make your modules for *all* released
kernels in one go and in one package, and thus allowing the user to go back
to older kernels without having to worry about an additional extra package
needed for that.
Another person also had a script to build modules automated, but done in a
different way, so I would not call this an issue without solution at all.
Attachment:
pgpeoyipiVSJf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
