-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Timur Tabi wrote:
| Jon Masters wrote:
|> You *have* to actually build the kernel with whichever configuration |> file you eventually figure out Fedora 3 is using. The kbuild modules |> process now requires a copy of the actual object files - it's not just |> sufficient to have a config file and headers installed somewhere. This |> is partly because the extra linking stages for modules really want |> some symbols defined during a kernel build.
| The more I learn about kbuild, the more I think it's a step backwards | from the traditional makefile method.
The point is that the kernel development community feels this approach catches the most errors by being overtly paranoid.
| I believe it is an absolute requirement for every Linux distro to be | able to build modules for the distributed kernel without having to | recompile the kernel itself.
I think that would be a good idea, but there are projects which aim to overcome the current problems with dynamic module building, etc.
| It's bad enough that the kernel developers don't care about backward | compatibility or want to provide a binary API, but hardware vendors can | at least deal with those situations. But now the Fedora developers want | HW vendors to tell their customers that they all need to recompile the | kernel as well? What's the point in distributing a compiled kernel at | all, then? Fedora may as well just compile the kernel during | installation. At least that way, everything the user needs to add | external modules will already be there.
I think you need to calm down and then reassess whether you're moaning at Fedora or Linux kernel developers. I think you're actually going after the latter because they're the ones who made the call which put Fedora in the position you think is bad :-).
Personally, I also think it's sucky, but there aint a perfect solution. Probably what will happen is that hardware venders will continue to offer drivers for kernels built for particular Redhat distributions - no change there from an end user viewpoint. The main problem comes with security updates - newer vendor updated kernels won't be in step with hardware manufacturer's third party binary drivers.
Just before someone says "binary drivers are bad", we're not actually talking about that here per se. It's perfectly possible for a third party to ship updated GPL drivers or drivers not in the stock kernel. These issues will all work themselves out eventually.
Jon. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBqlRPeTyyexZHHxERAlyAAJ97LdujESqIvk5e+HuHOehb9qfUmgCfb1DA trJpjSetiD2EuTNSptDaRPY= =4yLW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
