FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included
fedora at kensystem.com
Fri Oct 15 21:00:07 UTC 2004
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:45:02PM -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
>>I meant to say that its desirable to get the incremental updates using
>>any lightweight (or not) methods, say CVS, without downloading a whole
>>new rpm (source tree) for each update - or even becoming dependent on rpm...
> This is a branch into a different argument -- if you don't want to use RPM,
> why do you want a binary RPM of the kernel source?
> But really, I think you _do_ want to use RPM, and just don't know it yet. :)
My only desire is to get the exact source that built the kernel (w/o
manual labor or version-interpolation) - an rpm is fine, so is tar, etc.
But once I have it I have no motivation for repackaging it. It will
likely live on just one machine.
Opinions vary on how to maintain/distro kernels across multiple
machines, but given that most machines dont have the same hardware (even
in large enterprise server-rooms) or even roles (need for a given
module), and given that its a just good feeling to have a build-able
source tree living on every machine (space is not an issue for me
lately), I cant make much use of rpm for kernel management - I agree
theres some great capabilities in it though for managing versions in
applications though. Maybe I'll find the kernel beauty in it too,
someday. Right now I'm more worried about its inital availability, rpm
or no. :-)
More information about the users