Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

From: Rodolfo J. Paiz (rpaiz_at_simpaticus.com)
Date: 10/16/04

  • Next message: Ken Johanson: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included" 
    To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:43:22 -0600

    On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:18 -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
    > Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
    > > # wget -c ftp://$YOURMIRROR/$PATH/kernel*rpm
    > Again diversion from the point using a wortkaround solution that doesnt
    > fit every bill. You think I didnt know that?

    Well, your posting the putative need to download 2.6GB of SRPMS to get
    just the kernel source implied very clearly that you either did *not*
    know that, or were just very short on imagination to describe why you
    disagree with the choices Fedora Core 3 has made. It's a very poor
    example: you say download 2.6GB, you get "wget" as a response.

    Either that, or you were just being dramatic and inflammatory, which
    makes it a hell of a lot harder to carry on a reasonable discussion.

    > And time, right? Surely this cant be labeled a same-story for the 95% of
    > the apps that are still on those distro disks that people dont use --
    > many of which are needed, far, far, far, FAR less then the kernel
    > source. Do you dare me to name examples????? Again, nice defensive arg
    > but not sale here.
    >

    Your argument of "there appears to be space" held a downside, which I
    pointed out as being that we already have far too *much* stuff on those
    disks. Answering me by agreeing that there's too much stuff doesn't
    really get you very far... it certainly does not prove my point wrong.

    If you want to suggest the removal of some other packages to get the
    kernel SRPM included in the binary disks, be my guest. If you want to
    suggest that the kernel SRPM simply be duplicated (included in both a
    source disk and a binary disk), be my guest.

    What is holding you back from making that suggestion (constructively)
    and in the right forum which is likely fedora-devel, fedora-test, and
    Bugzilla?

    > Yes, and I assert that things on those disk as far less deserving of
    > being on there than the very heartbeat itself. ...... Or do you not
    > agree.. please say yes or no.
    >

    No. I think the answer is "the two issues are not related." You want the
    binary disks to include the kernel SRPM, go ahead and suggest that. You
    want other stuff removed (in case someone who actually works on this
    stuff says they booted it because of too much other stuff), go ahead and
    suggest that too. No relation.

    Only three of the roughly 200 systems on which I have ever worked needed
    that "heartbeat" we know as the kernel source. I agree that the freedom
    and liberty involved in having the kernel source is nearly the lifeblood
    of Linux. I do not agree that it's worth any fuss at all when that
    source code moves to a SRPM package on another disk of the same set.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are making a storm in a paper
    cup, to translate a local saying, and that you are letting off steam for
    a choice made in packaging which does not suit you and with which you
    disagree. Fine, you have that right.

    But since I have also come to the conclusion that I disagree with you
    and that I don't have the time, patience, expertise or interest
    necessary to convince you, I'm going to drop off this thread.

    Good luck, 

    -- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz@simpaticus.com>



    


    -- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
  • Next message: Ken Johanson: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"

    Relevant Pages