kernel source code

[not disclosed]

Dear All,

RE: In order to eliminate the redundancy inherent in providing a separate 
package for the kernel source code when that source code already exists in 
the kernel's .src.rpm file, Fedora Core 3 no longer includes the 
kernel-source package. - 
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/

I think this is a big mistake - kernel-source didn't harm anyone and 
removing it hugely increases the amount of hassle involved in any kernel 
upgrade.  You have to accept that fedora users will be using stuff that lies 
outside the fedora world of nicely packaged programs and this means that 
users need the source code.  The hassle involved with this elimination of 
the kernel source code package is irritating enough for us to consider using 
another distro when we come to change from FC2.

Please put the kernel sourcecode back.

Cheers,

SA

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Peter Backlund]

ons 2005-03-30 klockan 10:07 +0000 skrev not disclosed:
> Dear All,
> RE: In order to eliminate the redundancy inherent in providing a separate 
> package for the kernel source code when that source code already exists in 
> the kernel's .src.rpm file, Fedora Core 3 no longer includes the 
> kernel-source package. - 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
>
> I think this is a big mistake - kernel-source didn't harm anyone and 
> removing it hugely increases the amount of hassle involved in any kernel 
> upgrade.  You have to accept that fedora users will be using stuff that lies 
> outside the fedora world of nicely packaged programs and this means that 
> users need the source code.

What do they need it for, exactly?
> The hassle involved with this elimination of 
> the kernel source code package is irritating enough for us to consider using 
> another distro when we come to change from FC2.

Did you read the instructions in the release notes for obtaining a
buildable kernel source tree?

/Peter

[not disclosed]

We need it for building drivers which aren't included in the fedora distros 
- not everything in the world is rpm based.  We also need it to customize 
the kernels.

I have around 20 machines running fc2, (they are all running different 
kernels one different processors with different hardware)- the extra hassle 
involved here (and it is a fiddly task) makes it easier to switch to another 
distro.

Not everything is rpm'd - this change is an huge pain in the arse. I don't 
see how including this package inconveniences anyone.

SA
> From: Peter Backlund 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:25:30 +0200
>
> ons 2005-03-30 klockan 10:07 +0000 skrev not disclosed:
> > Dear All,
> > RE: In order to eliminate the redundancy inherent in providing a
>
> separate
> > package for the kernel source code when that source code already exists
>
> in
> > the kernel's .src.rpm file, Fedora Core 3 no longer includes the
> > kernel-source package. -
> > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
> >
> > I think this is a big mistake - kernel-source didn't harm anyone and
> > removing it hugely increases the amount of hassle involved in any kernel
> > upgrade.  You have to accept that fedora users will be using stuff that
>
> lies
> > outside the fedora world of nicely packaged programs and this means that
> > users need the source code.
>
> What do they need it for, exactly?
> > The hassle involved with this elimination of
> > the kernel source code package is irritating enough for us to consider
>
> using
> > another distro when we come to change from FC2.
>
> Did you read the instructions in the release notes for obtaining a
> buildable kernel source tree?
>
> /Peter
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Warren Togami]

not disclosed wrote:
> We need it for building drivers which aren't included in the fedora 
> distros - not everything in the world is rpm based.  We also need it to 
> customize the kernels.

Did you miss the part about NOT NEEDING kernel source in order to build 
modules against that kernel?  FC2 and FC3 kernel provides headers that 
are sufficient 99% of the time, while FC4 split that out into 
kernel-devel which serves a similar purpose.

If you look at the 3rd party kernel module packages like nvidia or 
vmware, they build against these headers.

Warren Togami
[e-mail]

[not disclosed]

What exactly is the problem with including kernel-sourcecode?

It makes it easy to take someone else's driver and compile it against your 
source, it makes it easy to nobble the source and recompile - I have spent 
the last hour trying to install the source from
the src rpm following the instructions in 
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
and I still don't have the source code so I still can't compile my drivers.  
  I can't be arsed to repeat
this 20 times when I shift from fc2 in my lab - with the kernel-sourcecode 
package I would "yum install kernel-sourcecode" and be done.

Removing the kernel-sourcecode is a retrograde step that goes against the 
principle of packaging
stuff up - you are forcing the end user to learn a lot of largely useless, 
arbitrary code rubbish in order to achieve their task.  The annoying thing 
is that it doesn't seem to be saving anyone anything. The idea that it 
causes harm by duplicating things that are available in the source is daft - 
if you followed this to its conclusion then you would stop distributingmost 
binaries.

SA
> From: Warren Togami 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:31:23 -1000
>
> not disclosed wrote:
> > We need it for building drivers which aren't included in the fedora 
> > distros - not everything in the world is rpm based.  We also need it to 
> > customize the kernels.
>
> Did you miss the part about NOT NEEDING kernel source in order to build 
> modules against that kernel?  FC2 and FC3 kernel provides headers that are 
> sufficient 99% of the time, while FC4 split that out into kernel-devel 
> which serves a similar purpose.
>
> If you look at the 3rd party kernel module packages like nvidia or vmware, 
> they build against these headers.
>
> Warren Togami
> [e-mail]
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[not disclosed]

Can anyone enlighten me as to what this is supposed to mean?

In order to eliminate the redundancy inherent in providing a separate 
package for the kernel source code when that source code already exists in 
the kernel's .src.rpm file, Fedora Core 3 no longer includes the 
kernel-source package. Users that require access to the kernel sources can 
find them in the kernel .src.rpm file. To create an exploded source tree 
from this file, perform the following steps (note that <version> refers to 
the version specification for your currently-running kernel):
         1.            Obtain the kernel-<version>.src.rpm file from one of 
the following sources:
DONE
         2.            Install kernel-<version>.src.rpm (given the default 
RPM configuration, the files this package contains will be written to 
/usr/src/redhat/)
Presumably rpm -i ....src.rpm - DONE
         3.            Change directory to /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/, and issue 
the following command:
            rpmbuild -bp --target=<arch> kernel.spec
            (Where <arch> is the desired target architecture.)
DONE
            On a default RPM configuration, the kernel tree will be located 
in /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/.
         4.            In resulting tree, the configurations for the 
specific kernels shipped in Fedora Core 3 are in the /configs/ directory. 
For example, the i686 SMP configuration file is named 
/configs/kernel-<version>-i686-smp.config. Issue the following command to 
place the desired configuration file in the proper place for building:

cp <desired-file> ./.config
Errr- where are you supposed to be when you do this (cadidates are in this 
case /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/kernel-2.6.10/linux-2.6.10/configs or 
/usr/src/redhat/SPECS/)

5.            Issue the following command:

make oldconfig
Errr - where are you supposed to be in this case? presumably where there is  
the top level makefile is?

And where are the sources supposed to end up? the directory 
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/kernel-2.6.10/linux-2.6.10 doesn't seem very 
general... I guess it is appropriate to copy this to /usr/src?

I did have one minor complaint about the behaviour of yum and 
kernel-sourcecode before and that was that yum insisted in deleting 
sourcecodes from other kernel versions making it a pain to upgrade gently.  
Still it was easier than this...

Thanks,

SA
> From: "not disclosed" 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:42:54 +0000
>
> What exactly is the problem with including kernel-sourcecode?
>
> It makes it easy to take someone else's driver and compile it against your 
> source, it makes it easy to nobble the source and recompile - I have spent 
> the last hour trying to install the source from
> the src rpm following the instructions in 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
> and I still don't have the source code so I still can't compile my drivers. 
>   I can't be arsed to repeat
> this 20 times when I shift from fc2 in my lab - with the kernel-sourcecode 
> package I would "yum install kernel-sourcecode" and be done.
>
> Removing the kernel-sourcecode is a retrograde step that goes against the 
> principle of packaging
> stuff up - you are forcing the end user to learn a lot of largely useless, 
> arbitrary code rubbish in order to achieve their task.  The annoying thing 
> is that it doesn't seem to be saving anyone anything. The idea that it 
> causes harm by duplicating things that are available in the source is daft
> if you followed this to its conclusion then you would stop
>
> distributingmost binaries.
>
> SA
> > From: Warren Togami 
> > Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
> >
> > To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
> >
> > Subject: Re: kernel source code
> > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:31:23 -1000
> >
> > not disclosed wrote:
> > > We need it for building drivers which aren't included in the fedora 
> > > distros - not everything in the world is rpm based.  We also need it to 
> > > customize the kernels.
> >
> > Did you miss the part about NOT NEEDING kernel source in order to build 
> > modules against that kernel?  FC2 and FC3 kernel provides headers that are 
> > sufficient 99% of the time, while FC4 split that out into kernel-devel 
> > which serves a similar purpose.
> >
> > If you look at the 3rd party kernel module packages like nvidia or vmware, 
> > they build against these headers.
> >
> > Warren Togami
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > --
> > fedora-devel-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Iago Rubio]

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:42 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> What exactly is the problem with including kernel-sourcecode?
>
> It makes it easy to take someone else's driver and compile it against your 
> source, it makes it easy to nobble the source and recompile - I have spent 
> the last hour trying to install the source from
> the src rpm following the instructions in 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
> and I still don't have the source code so I still can't compile my drivers.

Did you looked at /usr/src/redhat/BUILD ?
> I can't be arsed to repeat
> this 20 times when I shift from fc2 in my lab - with the kernel-sourcecode 
> package I would "yum install kernel-sourcecode" and be done.

Please, read the *whole* instructions in the release  notes.
> Removing the kernel-sourcecode is a retrograde step that goes against the 
> principle of packaging
> stuff up - you are forcing the end user to learn a lot of largely useless, 
> arbitrary code rubbish in order to achieve their task.

No, users that rebuilds their rpm packages know exactly how to manage
source rpms.

Your words are a prove, that a separate kernel source package just
developed in users a bogus idea of how to manage source packages on rpm
based distros.

You've got the binaries in the rpm and the sources in the src.rpm, for
all packages. Why the kernel sources should be an exception ?
> The annoying thing 
> is that it doesn't seem to be saving anyone anything. The idea that it 
> causes harm by duplicating things that are available in the source is daft - 
> if you followed this to its conclusion then you would stop distributingmost 
> binaries.

This is complately pointless.

To make a symlink from /usr/src/linux
to /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/kernel*/linux* to match your previous build
environment is not a hard task, is it ?

ITOH in the release notes and in Warren's repply to your mail, you can
read there's *no need* of kernel source code to build third party
drivers - in most cases. I have no kernel source code, and built the
nvidia driver not once, but one time for each kernel upgrade.

Is this so difficult to understand ?

I was painfull to download the whole kernel source code, and build it,
just to get a sane environment to build the nvidia driver.

Now to build third party drivers is much easier for me.

[Emmanuel Seyman]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:42:54AM +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> What exactly is the problem with including kernel-sourcecode?

It's a huge file (30+ Mb?) that you are trying to force everybody
to download and that very few people need (even the people who
believe they need it aren't always right).

Teeling people to grab the kernel src.rpm solves this problem.
People who need the source still have, those who don't need it
can stop downloading it over and over again.
> It makes it easy to take someone else's driver and compile it against your

You should not need the kernel source to recompile a driver.
> source, it makes it easy to nobble the source and recompile - I have spent 
> the last hour trying to install the source from
> the src rpm following the instructions in 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/

???

This took me all of two minutes.

Emmanuel

[not disclosed]

Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my 
drivers - also I do know that <most> people won't need the kernel-sourcecode 
and that the headers will suffice but this isn't the case here. <most> 
people won't be compiling drivers anyway.  As for the convenience (it isn't 
hard to put a link in.... etc) no it isn't but it is a time wasting pain in 
the arse to find out where rpm puts all this rubbish - just because I use FC 
doesn't mean I am endowed with special pyschic powers that mean I (end user) 
automatically know what (you developer / packager) know and therefore it 
isn't reasonable to assume that I know where to put the link - it takes time 
to find this out and this is wasted time.

In order to save people the deadful inconvenience of downloading the kernel 
source as opposed to the kernel headers you could just tell people that - 
the kernel-sourcecode package still remains useful and a valuable time 
saving resource.

I am detecting a degree of hostility from the posts I have received, a kind 
of "if you don't do it our way get stuffed" attitude which is rather 
unhelpful and rather charmless.  I am guessing that if this is 
representative of the powers that be in the FC development community that 
the chances of the the kernel source code  being put back in the distro are 
rather slim at this point.  In which case thanks very much for nothing, I'll 
find another distro.

SA
> From: Emmanuel Seyman 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:26:08 +0200
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:42:54AM +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> > What exactly is the problem with including kernel-sourcecode?
>
> It's a huge file (30+ Mb?) that you are trying to force everybody
> to download and that very few people need (even the people who
> believe they need it aren't always right).
>
> Teeling people to grab the kernel src.rpm solves this problem.
> People who need the source still have, those who don't need it
> can stop downloading it over and over again.
> > It makes it easy to take someone else's driver and compile it against
>
> your
>
> You should not need the kernel source to recompile a driver.
> > source, it makes it easy to nobble the source and recompile - I have
>
> spent
> > the last hour trying to install the source from
> > the src rpm following the instructions in
> > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
>
> ???
>
> This took me all of two minutes.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Emmanuel Seyman]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:48:50PM +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> just because I use FC doesn't mean I am endowed with special pyschic
>
> powers that mean I (end user) automatically know what (you developer / 
> packager) know and therefore it isn't reasonable to assume that I know 
> where to put the link - it takes time to find this out and this is wasted 
> time.

The Release Notes clearly state where the source tree is going to end up.
This is no excuse.
> I am detecting a degree of hostility from the posts I have received, a kind 
> of "if you don't do it our way get stuffed" attitude which is rather 
> unhelpful and rather charmless.  I am guessing that if this is

If you prefer helpful posts, then may I suggest:

- using a real name while communicating with us
- searching the archives before bringing this topic up yet another time
- reading the Release Notes
- sprouting stuff like "if you followed this to its conclusion then you would
  stop distributing most binaries." which I can't find to be very productive.
> representative of the powers that be in the FC development community that 
> the chances of the the kernel source code  being put back in the distro are 
> rather slim at this point.  In which case thanks very much for nothing, 
> I'll find another distro.

Debian is the only distribution that packages kernel source as binaries, IIRC.

Emmanuel

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Mer 30 mars 2005 14:48, not disclosed a écrit :
> Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my
> drivers - also I do know that <most> people won't need the
> kernel-sourcecode
> and that the headers will suffice but this isn't the case here. <most>
> people won't be compiling drivers anyway.

Right. And because yours is the exceptionnal case, there is no reason for
the distribution to bend over to accomodate you.

Building external modules is a dangerous and intrusive operation - you
should not do it if you do not know what you're doing, and that includes
understanding a minimum your distribution inner workings - of which rpm is
a key part.

I find it rather strange that after claiming you have to maintain several
systems running Fedora you display such a strong aversion to rpm. rpm is
the core tech used to ease (multiple) software deployments on rpm-based
distributions. If you can't stand Fedora's way of managing software, why
the heck are you running several FC instances in the first place ?

[not disclosed]

We use RPM for convenience - also FC for convenience - we could and probably 
will use another distro if the kernel source code remains unpackaged.  I use 
debian for my computer servers, we will probably switch to debian or another 
apt-get distro.  Personally I like yum and rarely touch rpm directly - it is 
not obvious or easily documented to find out where RPM puts stuff or what it 
does. I don't have space for learing another load of complicated switches 
and options to find out.  since it is about convenience I will switch to 
something more conveneint.
> From: "Nicolas Mailhot" 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora Core" 
>
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:25:03 +0200 (CEST)
>
> On Mer 30 mars 2005 14:48, not disclosed a écrit :
> > Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my
> > drivers - also I do know that <most> people won't need the
> > kernel-sourcecode
> > and that the headers will suffice but this isn't the case here. <most>
> > people won't be compiling drivers anyway.
>
> Right. And because yours is the exceptionnal case, there is no reason for
> the distribution to bend over to accomodate you.
>
> Building external modules is a dangerous and intrusive operation - you
> should not do it if you do not know what you're doing, and that includes
> understanding a minimum your distribution inner workings - of which rpm is
> a key part.
>
> I find it rather strange that after claiming you have to maintain several
> systems running Fedora you display such a strong aversion to rpm. rpm is
> the core tech used to ease (multiple) software deployments on rpm-based
> distributions. If you can't stand Fedora's way of managing software, why
> the heck are you running several FC instances in the first place ?
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Alexander Boström]

ons 2005-03-30 klockan 12:48 +0000 skrev not disclosed:
> I am detecting a degree of hostility from the posts I have received,

Yes, because you only state your personal preference, without including
any *new* arguments. We've had the discussion before. If you want to
actually make an impression and convince people that you're worth
listening to you need to concentrate on *new* arguments that people
haven't heard before, and you also need to show that you are aware of
the whole picture.

For example, do you know that the distribution is on a very tight space
budget? If you want a 30M package to be included, you really need to say
what other package should be excluded instead. (An no, saying "add
another CD" isn't useful, because that's another discussion we've had
already.)

This is a good start which you should have included in you first mail:
> Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my 
> drivers

But it would be nice to know what exactly it is that's missing from the
headers package.

If your argument really is "I need to compile my own kernel but I don't
want to learn how to build RPM:s" then you should just say so.

/abo

[not disclosed]

What is missing from the headers -> the kernel source code!
> From: Alexander Boström 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:48:22 +0200
>
> ons 2005-03-30 klockan 12:48 +0000 skrev not disclosed:
> > I am detecting a degree of hostility from the posts I have received,
>
> Yes, because you only state your personal preference, without including
> any *new* arguments. We've had the discussion before. If you want to
> actually make an impression and convince people that you're worth
> listening to you need to concentrate on *new* arguments that people
> haven't heard before, and you also need to show that you are aware of
> the whole picture.
>
> For example, do you know that the distribution is on a very tight space
> budget? If you want a 30M package to be included, you really need to say
> what other package should be excluded instead. (An no, saying "add
> another CD" isn't useful, because that's another discussion we've had
> already.)
>
> This is a good start which you should have included in you first mail:
> > Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my
> > drivers
>
> But it would be nice to know what exactly it is that's missing from the
> headers package.
>
> If your argument really is "I need to compile my own kernel but I don't
> want to learn how to build RPM:s" then you should just say so.
>
> /abo
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:39:51PM +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> What is missing from the headers -> the kernel source code!

You don't need glibc source code to compile linux userspace apps, so 
why do you need kernel source code to compile kernel modules?  You 
still haven't told us what you need to compile that requires the full 
kernel source.

Why don't you complain about the lack of a glibc-sourcecode or
gnome-sourcecode or xorg-x11-sourcecode RPM which makes it
"inconvenient" to compile your own versions?

[not disclosed]

I am signing out of this thread - I have the distinct feeling that the 
source code is not going to be magically restored which seems to be for 
reasons of space rather than anything else.  The source code is very useful 
to us and is normally the first optional package we stick on a bare bones 
system before updating.  The current instructions for the src·rpm leave 
quite a lot to be desired in my opinion.  It looks like the best all-round 
solution is to move to another distro at the next upgrade cycle, probably 
debian which we already use and trust.

Cheers,

SA

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 22:51 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> I am signing out of this thread - I have the distinct feeling that the

Yet another hit-and-run, flame-throwing posters.  For starters, go
read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.  Then, examine
your own attitude in the tone of your posts.
  From what I can tell, the respondents to this thread have been plenty
accommodating, especially given the NUMEROUS times this has been
discussed.
  The basic answer is that if you *do* need the kernel source to build
kernel modules, then the build process for that module is broken.  There
has certainly been disagreement on this list about the best way to
provide a build environment for kernel modules, but I believe the latest
incarnation of that (kernel-devel to match each kernel) meets the needs
that many have discussed on this list in the past.
  As you've noticed, you're not going to find much support for restoring
the old, broken way of doing things.  Such is life.  Fedora Core isn't
for everyone.  If another distribution meets your needs better, by all
means, use it.

[William Beebe]

I like Fedora for many reasons, not the least of which is I can pull a
stock kernel off kernel.org, build it, and boot it, with FC3. With
nothing more than the normal download-unpack-and-make dance I can run
with the bleeding edge (or the latest fixes, depending on your point
of view).

Having said that I support the current change to how sources are
supplied as long as this state of affairs continues. I look at my
experiences with my other distro here at home, SuSE 9.1. With SuSE I
have had the devil's own time learning how to build a stock kernel
that will boot with SuSE. For the longest it would stop after
unpacking the kernel and right before booting the root device, saying
it couldn't find the bloody thing. So if for some reason FC starts to
behave like SuSE with regards to stock kernels, well, I don't what
I'll do. Cry into my beer, I guess. And go buy a Mac.

As a satisfied customer all I ask is please fix what you break before
I find out about it :)

Thanks for everything.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:33:31 -0500, Paul Iadonisi  wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 22:51 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> > I am signing out of this thread - I have the distinct feeling that the
>
> Yet another hit-and-run, flame-throwing posters.  For starters, go
> read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.  Then, examine
> your own attitude in the tone of your posts.
>   From what I can tell, the respondents to this thread have been plenty
> accommodating, especially given the NUMEROUS times this has been
> discussed.
>   The basic answer is that if you *do* need the kernel source to build
> kernel modules, then the build process for that module is broken.  There
> has certainly been disagreement on this list about the best way to
> provide a build environment for kernel modules, but I believe the latest
> incarnation of that (kernel-devel to match each kernel) meets the needs
> that many have discussed on this list in the past.
>   As you've noticed, you're not going to find much support for restoring
> the old, broken way of doing things.  Such is life.  Fedora Core isn't
> for everyone.  If another distribution meets your needs better, by all
> means, use it.
>
> --
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
>  Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:26:52PM -0500, William Beebe wrote:
> I like Fedora for many reasons, not the least of which is I can pull a
> stock kernel off kernel.org, build it, and boot it, with FC3. With
> nothing more than the normal download-unpack-and-make dance I can run
> with the bleeding edge (or the latest fixes, depending on your point
> of view).
>
> Having said that I support the current change to how sources are
> supplied as long as this state of affairs continues. I look at my
> experiences with my other distro here at home, SuSE 9.1. With SuSE I
> have had the devil's own time learning how to build a stock kernel
> that will boot with SuSE. For the longest it would stop after
> unpacking the kernel and right before booting the root device, saying
> it couldn't find the bloody thing. So if for some reason FC starts to
> behave like SuSE with regards to stock kernels, well, I don't what
> I'll do. Cry into my beer, I guess. And go buy a Mac.

We've been pretty good in this regard for FC2/FC3, but we're not
perfect by any means. We've had some deviation away from mainline at times.
The one that sticks in my mind most recently is the patch we added to
FC3 to allow SELinux attributes on tmpfs -- A few folks noticed
that things went a bit funny when they tried to run with a stock 2.6.9
[the actual patch turned up in mainline in 2.6.10]
We do try to not merge stuff that's going to cause such grief though.
That one only got in because it was pretty much a required feature
for usable SELinux in FC3, and 2.6.10 was a way off when FC3 was released.
Actually by the time most people had installed FC3, ISTR it was actually
merged in 2.6.10rc too, so it was only a problem for folks not wanting
to apply prepatches, or -ac/-mm patches.

When we're not hacking Fedora kernels, some of us work on upstream
too, so it's in our best interests to make sure we can continue to
do so :-)
> As a satisfied customer all I ask is please fix what you break before
> I find out about it :)

It seems we did :-)

Dave

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:48 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile
> my drivers

Explain in more detail. Most people who claim this are wrong.

[not disclosed]

Examples: comedi doesn't compile without the source, we need to rip stuff 
from the drivers as example code in volatile kernel source (last example 
MTRR register contol / SMP safety under "hyper threading IA32" /  INT size 
x86_64 are the last issue I can remember) and need to make kernel mods (HID 
driver / labjack).
> From: David Woodhouse 
> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core 
>
> Subject: Re: kernel source code
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:41 +0100
>
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:48 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> > Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile
> > my drivers
>
> Explain in more detail. Most people who claim this are wrong.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:44:50PM +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> Examples: comedi doesn't compile without the source, we need to rip stuff 
> from the drivers as example code in volatile kernel source (last example 
> MTRR register contol / SMP safety under "hyper threading IA32" /  INT size 
> x86_64 are the last issue I can remember) and need to make kernel mods (HID 
> driver / labjack).

Yuck.  Comedi should fix their build system so it works properly
without ugly hacks to the kernel source tree, and then push their code 
into the official kernel.

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday 30 March 2005 17:44, not disclosed wrote:
> Examples: comedi doesn't compile without the source, we need to rip stuff
> from the drivers as example code in volatile kernel source (last example
> MTRR register contol / SMP safety under "hyper threading IA32" /  INT size
> x86_64 are the last issue I can remember) and need to make kernel mods (HID
> driver / labjack).

Yeah, the labjack stuff and comedi are kindof broken.  But, getting 
kernel-sourcecode yourself isn't very hard.

What you might investigate is integrating the labjack stuff and comedi into 
your own custom kernel RPM that you build on a single host, push to your own 
internal yum repository, and stay with convenient RPM packaging.  This is the 
correct way of doing it, and then you don't have to build the stuff on your 
controller PC's (that is what you are needed machine control stuff like 
labjack (we have nearly a dozen of those handy beasts here at PARI doing 
telescope control), right?).  Integrating the patches yourself in the spec 
isn't very hard and saves all kinds of space on your control PC's.

And the chances of comedi getting into the kernel could be kindof slim.

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, not disclosed wrote:
> Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my
> drivers - also I do know that <most> people won't need the kernel-sourcecode
> and that the headers will suffice but this isn't the case here.

It would help if you explained exactly which files you need
that are missing from the kernel-devel RPM.  If there aren't
too many of them, those could probably be added to the
kernel-devel package, solving your problem.

[Dawid Gajownik]

Dnia 03/30/2005 07:58 PM, Użytkownik Rik van Riel napisał:
> It would help if you explained exactly which files you need
> that are missing from the kernel-devel RPM.

I'm not the author of this thread, but I have problem with
lirc-0.7.1pre3 (actually, not only me ->
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10414981 )

I run:

./configure --with-driver=kworld \
--with-kerneldir=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/

After 'make' I got this error:

/home/y4kk0/usr/src/lirc-0.7.1pre3/drivers/lirc_gpio/lirc_gpio.c:52:41:
../drivers/media/video/bttv.h: No such file or directory
/home/y4kk0/usr/src/lirc-0.7.1pre3/drivers/lirc_gpio/lirc_gpio.c:53:42:
../drivers/media/video/bttvp.h: No such file or directory

and compilation fails :/ Should kernel-devel package contain those
header files or the problem is somewhere else?

If it makes any differance, I use kernel-2.6.11-1.7_FC3 on my FC3 :)

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 22:04 +0200, Dawid Gajownik wrote:
> After 'make' I got this error:
>
> /home/y4kk0/usr/src/lirc-0.7.1pre3/drivers/lirc_gpio/lirc_gpio.c:52:41:
> ../drivers/media/video/bttv.h: No such file or directory
> /home/y4kk0/usr/src/lirc-0.7.1pre3/drivers/lirc_gpio/lirc_gpio.c:53:42:
> ../drivers/media/video/bttvp.h: No such file or directory

If those header files are intended for use by code outside the
drivers/media/video directory of the kernel tree, then they should be in
include/linux/ somewhere instead of where they are.

It _would_ be possible to include those in the kernel-devel package, but
it's probably better to get them moved in the upstream kernel.

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:48 +0000, not disclosed wrote:
> Just so you all know - yes I do need the whole source code to compile my 
> drivers - also I do know that <most> people won't need the kernel-sourcecode 
> and that the headers will suffice but this isn't the case here. <most> 
> people won't be compiling drivers anyway.  As for the convenience (it isn't 
> hard to put a link in.... etc) no it isn't but it is a time wasting pain in 
> the arse to find out where rpm puts all this rubbish - just because I use FC 
> doesn't mean I am endowed with special pyschic powers that mean I (end user) 
> automatically know what (you developer / packager) know and therefore it 
> isn't reasonable to assume that I know where to put the link - it takes time 
> to find this out and this is wasted time.

Please file a bug against the release notes if they fail to make it
clear where files are located.  It would be helpful if you can show the
incorrect information and what you think it should say.

- Karsten

[Michael A. Peters]

On 03/30/2005 04:48:50 AM, not disclosed wrote:
> I am detecting a degree of hostility from the posts I have received,  
> a kind of "if you don't do it our way get stuffed" attitude

Ironic

netfilter modules (was: kernel source code)

[Kenneth Porter]

--On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:31 AM -1000 Warren Togami 
 wrote:
> Did you miss the part about NOT NEEDING kernel source in order to build
> modules against that kernel?  FC2 and FC3 kernel provides headers that
> are sufficient 99% of the time, while FC4 split that out into
> kernel-devel which serves a similar purpose.

BTW, has anyone attempted to build netfilter modules using the kernel build 
system? It would be nice to be able to try out some of the experimental 
stuff without having to build a full custom kernel. (I'd particularly like 
to use the U32 match module to detect/block some malicious UDP packets.) 
IIRC, most of the modules include a matching userspace shared object that's 
used by the iptables binary so of course that would also be needed, but in 
principle one could package the two together.

netfilter modules (was: kernel source code)

[Dennis Gilmore]

Once upon a time Wednesday 30 March 2005 7:03 pm, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:31 AM -1000 Warren Togami
>
>  wrote:
> > Did you miss the part about NOT NEEDING kernel source in order to build
> > modules against that kernel?  FC2 and FC3 kernel provides headers that
> > are sufficient 99% of the time, while FC4 split that out into
> > kernel-devel which serves a similar purpose.
>
> BTW, has anyone attempted to build netfilter modules using the kernel build
> system? It would be nice to be able to try out some of the experimental
> stuff without having to build a full custom kernel. (I'd particularly like
> to use the U32 match module to detect/block some malicious UDP packets.)
> IIRC, most of the modules include a matching userspace shared object that's
> used by the iptables binary so of course that would also be needed, but in
> principle one could package the two together.

Not Really,  Building a kernel module and userland app would mean  the app 
would be replaced everytime that a  new kernel was released.  so you would 
need a kernel moudule rpm and a user land app rpm

[Michael A. Peters]

On 03/30/2005 02:25:30 AM, Peter Backlund wrote:
> What do they need it for, exactly?

Me personally?
Nothing - none of the add-on kernel modules I have used required a  
kernel source package to build. I know I don't speak for everyone,  
but ...