On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Daniel Isenmann > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm a little bit confused right now. How can I blacklist modules. I > > > have test both, MOD_BLACKLIST=(...) and MODULES=(!...), but both don't > > > work. udev loads every module which can be loaded. For example I > > > blacklist nvidiafb, but udev loads it. Packages are up2date with > > > testing repo. > > > > > > Can someone please explain it or the status is on this topic? > > > > The status is that I haven't gotten a concise answer. On this. For the > > time being, I think we should do the following: > > > > a) Rebuild udev 118 with start_udev in there, for the people who keep > > their systems in some goofy limbo state by only updating singular > > packages at a time > > And add a big old echo at the top saying "You are using start_dev. > This script will be removed in a future release!"
Doesn't work. It's run with 2>&1 >/dev/null, which is very good at keeping users uninformed of what's going on. > > c) Remove framebuffer module loading from the load-modules script (it > > should never have been there in the first place). > Agreed. What are the hotpoints in this script as well? Something like > this seems inefficient: > i="$(/sbin/modprobe -i --show-depends $1 | sed "s#^insmod > /lib.*/\(.*\)\.ko.*#\1#g" | sed 's|-|_|g')" > > We invoke 3 subprocesses here (modprobe, sed, and sed). Surely the two > seds can be combined. already done locally. > See a trend here? So we have the following in one run of > load-modules.sh (if we look back at the version packaged with 116): Good catch with all the seds... but ummm.... how about we NOT worry about optimizing a script we'd like to get rid of? I'm sure start_udev could use some cleanup, want to do that too?