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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
