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.
Thats what the average user will think they need to do download the source rpms - just look through the list of respondents - people justifying this be reasoning of "Its one the source ISOs". I'd say half of them offer this as a valid option. Even you are implying that my point is bloated, because "its on the source discs".
How many time have you downloaded the source discs - never here.
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.
As one poster suggested, the development tools should be included with the kernel, even if its a separate disc - to include the development tools but not the kernel-source on the install discs is... bizarre, IMO. IMO the kernel deserves to be on the install disc more because it has more than just a developer audience - the average shell script users who knowns nothing about critical sections and or GTK, can compile the kernel. Ah, the magic of it.
What is holding you back from making that suggestion (constructively) and in the right forum which is likely fedora-devel, fedora-test, and Bugzilla?
You've got me - I may have thrown a virtual fit over this out of shear disbelief of it last night, but the truth is I'm reaching a much, much larger audience than bugzilla would. Bugzilla is swapped, and doesnt even begin to reach the average user. And others people 'constructive' menas of trying to sway them to include it seem to have not worked.
Sadly, most of what I've atrracted here is the critic's critics.. The people who agree partially or wholy dont want to offer an opinion, based on the behavior they see here, namely personal slander, the repeated offerings of alternatives that just arent always practical. The prevverbial new chipset gige card.
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.
About choosing between whats more commonly needed on those disks, you and I disagree - and thats okay.
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.
Hence forth, I and all my colleagues will download those source RPMs, for each test, and final, release.
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.
I appreciate your comments, thanks take care, and nothing personal.
Good luck,
