kernel-devel in "Fedora" spin?

[Chris Snook]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Back in December, I had made a change that blocked kernel-devel packages
>>> from winding up in the install media for the Fedora spin.  I don't
>>> recall getting any push back at the time, but I've gotten at least one
>>> angry comment since then.  So I'm putting it out for more discussion.
>>> Do we feel that the kernel-devel (5~megs) should be in the install
>>> media?
>> Yes please.  There's always new hardware we don't support yet, so some 
>> people will need to build drivers just to get online and access the 
>> repos.  If we ship it on the install media, it's much easier to 
>> distribute code that you're reasonably confident will work on a new 
>> install.  If people have to hunt down matching kernel and kernel-devel 
>> rpms, it's a moving target for people working on these device drivers.
>>
>> I'm not saying we should bend over backwards for out-of-tree drivers, but 
>> this is precisely the scenario that determines the first impression for 
>> someone trying this "Linux" thing on their shiny new bleeding-edge box, 
>> and it's pretty easy to accomodate.
> 
> Erm... if this is the first time someone is trying a shiny new "Linux" thing
> on a bleeding edge box, and they have to grab a kernel-devel package and
> build drivers _themselves_, then they are obviously smart enough  to run
> 'yum install kernel-devel'.  Somehow I think your example is slightly off.
> I don't know many Linux newbies that know 1) that they need to build a
> driver, 2) what driver to build, and 3) what packages they need to build it
> all without knowing how to install anything.
> 
> <jedi>
> These are not the people you are targeting.  They know enough to not require
> kernel-devel on the install media.   You can move on to finding some other
> use case that makes sense.
> </jedi>
> 
> josh
> 

How are they going to 'yum install kernel-devel' with no internet connection? 
And how does the maintainer of the not-yet-merged driver ensure that his code 
always works with whatever kernel Fedora has rebased to today?  If you can be 
reasonably confident that every Fedora 10 user can at least get a certain 
matching kernel and kernel-devel, it's a lot easier to maintain drivers.  In 
theory you could build packages, but when you're doing this for Fedora, Debian, 
Ubuntu, CentOS, etc. it isn't really feasible.

I know this is a niche use case, but it's a very large niche, and it's the niche 
that's most likely to become avid Linux users if we don't push them away the 
first time.  I know because I had this experience when I first started 
maintaining the atl2 network driver.  Tens of thousands of EeePC users, many of 
them technically savvy but Linux novices, wanted to replace the hacked up 
Xandros that ships on the Eee with something a bit more flexible, but they 
needed atl2 to make it work, and it wasn't merged in the distros yet.  When 
fast-moving distros like Fedora rebased their kernels to 2.6.24, my code broke, 
but the users who had kernel-devel or equivalent on their install media were 
fine, while the others either had to dig around to find a matching kernel and 
development headers, since only the latest were in the repos, or wait for me to 
fix it.

The situation is much worse in the wireless world, where many of the drivers are 
reverse engineered and break on every new hardware rev, forcing users to install 
experimental stuff that isn't ready for merging in order to get their shiny new 
laptop online.

I'm not saying that kernel-devel is an absolutely critical package to have on 
the install media, but it's extremely convenient at a time when users are most 
frustrated.  If we're going to trim the install media, which I'm not 
fundamentally opposed to, there are much more frivolous things that should go first.

-- Chris