You know Bob, some people have real jobs and lives. They may not be zealots devoted to the Fedora religion. So they complain when things change unexpectedly. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is not even worth discussing unless you have too much time on your hands. Please, let's just get back to Fedora...
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Robert L Cochran Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:13 PM To: samurai@acm.org; For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: Where is the FC3 kernel Source?
Sam Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 04:40 +0100, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am Mi, den 24.11.2004 schrieb Sam Williams um 3:24:
I have looked everywhere and have been unable to find the location of
the FC3 kernel source. Dis manage to stumble upon the configs now located in /boot, but I can't find the source that was used to build any given FC3 kernel... Any help would be greatly appreciated?
Sam Williams
samurai@acm.org
The FC3 release notes will tell you :)
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/
(They are too on your hard drive.) As Satish wrote with a big smile, asked and answered numerous times.
Thanks all for your kind and patient responses to my query. As much as
LASHING OUT???
I would like to take the time to read everything that is released about
everything in the world, particularly the fledgling Fedora project I sadly don't have enough time to do that. Its particularly easy for me to get confused when a time honored tradition is changed.
I guess what I found particularly confusing in my search was the fact there was no /usr/src/linux, apparently that has changed and there was no installable package from either yum or apt that addressed the source
need. I apologize for not reading the release notes, but I'm in the process of trying to use FC for a multi-million dollar, multi- architectural aircraft control and simulation environment. So in addition to having two corporations, several executive VP's, severe deadlines, and insufficient staffing I now must read all the project documentation. Whether or not you realize it, changes like this can cause great management discomfort over the use of FC.
Anyway, thats my pain, sorry for sharing. Thanks again for your responses!
I seem to have seen a few other posts from people who were lashing out because they claimed they were on really mission critical projects and list members weren't being nice and touchy feely and falling all over themselves to be helpful with them. This post seems yet another of that genre.
Bob Cochran Greenbelt, Maryland
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
******************************************************************************** This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify Space Imaging immediately. ********************************************************************************
Shaffer Paul wrote:
You know Bob, some people have real jobs and lives. They may not be zealots devoted to the Fedora religion. So they complain when things change unexpectedly. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is not even worth discussing unless you have too much time on your hands. Please, let's just get back to Fedora...
So, without wanting to knock anyone, let's get back to consider if there's anything we can do to improve things.
What, exactly, is Fedora supposed to do?
The changes are clearly mentioned in the release notes. They're on the install CDs, and you're prompted to look at them during install.
Stuff *does* change between releases: that's nothing new. In fact, it's always been one of the defining characteristics first of Red Hat Linux then of Fedora: Red Hat keep pushing at the limitations of the platform.
How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
James.
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 11:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
Shaffer Paul wrote:
You know Bob, some people have real jobs and lives. They may not be zealots devoted to the Fedora religion. So they complain when things change unexpectedly. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is not even worth discussing unless you have too much time on your hands. Please, let's just get back to Fedora...
So, without wanting to knock anyone, let's get back to consider if there's anything we can do to improve things.
What, exactly, is Fedora supposed to do?
The changes are clearly mentioned in the release notes. They're on the install CDs, and you're prompted to look at them during install.
Stuff *does* change between releases: that's nothing new. In fact, it's always been one of the defining characteristics first of Red Hat Linux then of Fedora: Red Hat keep pushing at the limitations of the platform.
How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
If things stayed exactly the same between released versions there would be no real reason to have a new version. As has been stated things change.
The release notes are there to provide some hints at what has changed. Obviously not all items changed are used by all users so each user needs to review the release notes to determine if sub systems they use have changed.
Maybe before you are allowed to download the iso files each down loader would be required to read the release notes and pass a short test on the contents of those release notes? :)
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, James Wilkinson wrote:
How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
incorporate them into the clickable user license by testing the user with a small number of skill-testing questions before allowing the install to continue.
no, no, just kidding. well, maybe not ...
rday
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:47 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
Shaffer Paul wrote:
You know Bob, some people have real jobs and lives. They may not be zealots devoted to the Fedora religion. So they complain when things change unexpectedly. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is not even worth discussing unless you have too much time on your hands. Please, let's just get back to Fedora...
So, without wanting to knock anyone, let's get back to consider if there's anything we can do to improve things.
What, exactly, is Fedora supposed to do?
The changes are clearly mentioned in the release notes. They're on the install CDs, and you're prompted to look at them during install.
Stuff *does* change between releases: that's nothing new. In fact, it's always been one of the defining characteristics first of Red Hat Linux then of Fedora: Red Hat keep pushing at the limitations of the platform.
How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
Can we stick a good answer to this question on a wiki somewhere? It comes up so often it'd be great to simply be able to point people there.
James.
-- E-mail address: james | "I never really understood how there could be things @westexe.demon.co.uk | that would drive you insane just because you knew | them until I ran into Windows." | -- Peter da Silva
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:47 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote: How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
I would suggest copying the release notes to the installed system and integrating them into the kde/gnome menus. That MIGHT help.
The question is really "how can we make people READ the release notes?" We cannot. Given the volume on this one issue, perhaps the simple solution is to go back to providing kernel-source.rpm without having to compile it from src.rpm.
Hi
. Given the volume on this one issue, perhaps the simple
solution is to go back to providing kernel-source.rpm without having to compile it from src.rpm.
no. dont do it. The changes has been done and explanations have been given. its a total waste reverting the change at this pint
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
. Given the volume on this one issue, perhaps the simple
solution is to go back to providing kernel-source.rpm without having to compile it from src.rpm.
no. dont do it. The changes has been done and explanations have been given. its a total waste reverting the change at this pint
And perhaps there is another change in the pipeline.
kernel -> kernel + kernel-devel
http://www.redhat.com/archives/nahant-beta-list/2004-November/msg00157.html
Satish
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:03:47PM -0600, Satish Balay wrote:
And perhaps there is another change in the pipeline. kernel -> kernel + kernel-devel http://www.redhat.com/archives/nahant-beta-list/2004-November/msg00157.html
Oh, *nice*. This will be much, much better for building kernel module packages against various different versions.
On Friday 03 December 2004 03:39, David Cary Hart wrote:
I would suggest copying the release notes to the installed system and integrating them into the kde/gnome menus. That MIGHT help.
On fc3, with at least three browsers, the release notes are the default home page.
Evidently, you didn't read them:-)
On Friday 03 December 2004 02:59, David Malcolm wrote:
How can we make the release notes even more obvious?
Can we stick a good answer to this question on a wiki somewhere? It comes up so often it'd be great to simply be able to point people there.
The release notes jump out and bite your nose now; what can be more bleeding obvious?
-
David Cary Hart -
David Malcolm -
James Wilkinson -
John Summerfield -
Matthew Miller -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robert P. J. Day -
Satish Balay -
Scot L. Harris -
Shaffer Paul