On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 16:27 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:34:02PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:21:00PM -0400, davej@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > 91345d13cac519cfaaa556f30786ac01 i386/kernel-devel-2.6.12-1.1372_FC3.i586.rpm > > > > Dave -- I notice this switches to having kernel-devel subpackages a la FC4 > > and RHEL4. While that's certainly good in general, this "mid-release" switch > > threw me for a little loop. There's no mention in the changelog -- was this > > switch intentional, and is it going to stay? > > So, I've been pondering this for an hour or so. As I mentioned in my > other mail, it was unintentional, but how much would people scream > at me if things stayed this way for FC3 ? > > It's a bit of work to put it back the way it was in earlier FC3 kernels, > but it does mean pushing out yet another update to fix it. > > Given people will have to adapt to the change for FC4 anyway, is it > going to cause huge amounts of pain to make the switch now ? > > Opinions? I suspect there will be quite a lot of HOWTOs out there that say things like: * For FC1, you build module XYZ by installing the kernel-source rpm and then... * For FC2, FC3, you don't need the kernel-source so just build XYZ by doing... * For FC4 you must install the kernel-devel rpm and then... So having kernel-devel in FC3 updates will upset people writing those HOWTOs, and possibly packagers of kernel modules, whose FC3 build requirements just got more complicated. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
