But that is exactly the point of discussion. A kernel-devel package
should be per kernel version, arch and flavour, not a
conglomerate. That way you both have less bloat and it is universal to
be extended to arbitrary kernel, e.g. ones in future errata, custom
kernels and so on.
You have said this over and over but not provided any explanation on why
this is so. "should be" is your personal opinion.
less bloat: installing four kernel rpms worth of content to build for
four combinations of kernel takes over 50 MB. I don't see how that's
less bloat. A tradeoff symlinked forest like I have only adds 1.5 MB on
top of one kernel installed, which compared to 50 MB is a very good
tradeoff. On top of that, spec files can *still* be written *without
any additional -devel package* for the single-kernel user case. I
consider your solution more bloat.
"universal to be extended to arbitrary kernel": maybe you should give an
example, because I really don't understand what you're trying to say
here. I don't see how Red Hat would be suddenly unable to have a
one-size-fits-all devel package for all kernels they release as a set,
since they are releasing the set. Same goes for outside people. Seems
like a strawman's argument to me.
The all-errata-in-one package would need extra maintainance from a
central place, and would only allow building for the given set of
kernels.
I don't see how creating *four* rpms for four kernels as compared to
*one* devel rpm for four kernels is extra maintenance.
People releasing their custom kernel in the wild should take up
responsibility and provide the same mechanism as upstream does.
Thomas
Dave/Dina : future TV today ! -
http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
and it looks so pretty
all those tiny bright lights
calling my name
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! -
http://urgent.fm/