On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:20:44 -0500, David Cary Hart <Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > lacks the portability of creating kernel-source.rpm explain to be in very small words... how the usage of a src.rpm directly is less 'portable' than dealing with the kernel-source rpm? And I'm pretty sure you can create a new src.rpm that includes your changes so im really clear on how this is less portable. I'd say its more portable since you can roll your changes back up into an src.rpm and repeat the process incrementally even on different systems. > I don't really care about the kernel rpm Hmm, thats probably the underlying attitude that needs to be addressed. I think its very important to make sure that customizing any software.. from kernel to oneko...be done inside the framework of the package management system for the distribution you are working in. The use of kernel-source to date has been used as a hacky workaround to effective kernel oriented package management. Moving towards more effective and informed use of the src.rpm so that customized kernel 'packages' can be created and reused across systems is an important long term goal for any rpm based distribution. I'm really not sure why the kernel should be treated differently with regard to how sourcecode manipulation is to be performed compared to other packages. I'm sure people make custom patched versions of applications and library packages without the need of -source binary packages and have learned to use the src.rpm's People that care about kernel rpms probably see the emphasis on using the src.rpm and cleaning up a number of kernel related packaging issues like inclusion of the kernel-devel subpackage as progress. -jef"is off to write an rfe for including an openoffice.org-source and mozilla-source rpm to avoid working with src.rpms for those packages."spaleta
