fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Thorsten Leemhuis) writes: >> > Problem: Users that want to compile kernel modules (Nvidia Drivers...) >> > need to install the rpm. >> >> I do not see the problem here. Only few software can be built without >> additional packages (you need at least gcc, make, perhaps m4, bison, >> ...). > > I see the problem. All those users of the nvidia driver will have > problems to build the kernel module. Why? Do you think a user will see the difference between | $ make | bash: make: command not found and a compilation error? It will be task of NVidia to write sufficient documentation and/or diagnostic. And btw... the nvidia driver are not supported by FC ;) > And what will they search for to solve the problem: a kernel-source(code) > rpm that is will not be part of FC3 (as it seems). This is caused by missing packing policies. When RH would require things like | Provides: %name-devel = %epoch:%version-%release in packages with header-files but without a separate -devel subpackage, a future splitting (e.g. because of efficiency reasons or additional dependencies) would be much less painful. In this case, the module-packages could buildrequire 'kernel-devel' and would build both with monolitic and splitted packages. >> When the case above would be very common, you can make the >> header-package part of the base-system but without requiring it >> explicitly. So it can be disabled on minimal installations. > > Don't understand this. Add 'kernel-devel' to the comps.xml file (as 'type="default"'). Custom kickstart installations could disable it by adding '-kernel-devel' to the %files list. > How to solve the problem with updated kernels and the needed headers > for those? ??? Just add 'kernel-devel' to apt's 'Allow-Duplicated'; yum has probably something similar. So it won't be a problem to install multiple 'kernel-devel' packages. Enrico
