On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:28:28PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:18, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > This rather > > fundamental change has not even been pre announced. This has nothing to > > do with the way a community project should work. > > 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. Hoe do you explain that nevertheless well working kernel module rpms have been built out of kernel-source(code) for 2.6.6-1.435, 2.6.6-1.427 and 2.6.5-1.358? Just browse though http://ATrpms.net/dist/fc2/ Granted the kernel-source(code) package in its virgin form is not adequate, one needs to copy/mrproper/oldconfig/prepare it, but at least there is an rpm to pull is as an dependency. How would you write a specfile that needs to rpmbuild -bp kernel-....src.rpm to get at the headers? kernel module building requires prepared kernel headers for a certain .config. Let's put them to /usr/src/kernel-headers/2.6.7-1.499-i686/ instead of /lib/modules/2.6.7-1.499/build and have the former into kernel-headers-2.6.7-1.499.i686.rpm and have the latter be a symlink to it (or call the kernel-header rpms kernel-devel). Installation of kernel-headers-2.6.7-1.499.i686.rpm could even create /usr/src/linux and /usr/src/linux-2.6.7 symlinks in %post to ensure maximum backwards compatibility (only against tha latest installed kernel-header rpm). apt/yum/update would have to treak kernel-headers like the kernels, e.g. allow multiple occurences. That makes everybody happy, or not? P.S. I would _not_ provide kernel-source for kernel-headers packages, because they do not provide the full source and kernel module src.rpm could be requiring full source. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpORFanGFLuy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
