On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:28 +0100, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 22:14:53 schrieb davidMbrooke: > > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200, Andrew wrote: > > > Hi all. > > > I asked in other thread about this, but IMHO question is enough > > > important to create separate topic. > > > We must decide before beta1, how we will maintain files with module > > > options. > > > > > > One way I described earlier - to rename /etc/modules to different name > > > (for ex., /etc/modules.conf), and make /etc/modules/ directory for > > > module options. > > > Another way is to patch busybox so it will look for options in other > > > directory, for ex., /etc/modprobe.d/ > > > > > > It'll be good if we will make decision in nearest 2-3 days - because I > > > really need this feature (for mentioned nf_conntrack module). > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Personally, I think that patching BusyBox will lead to more confusion in > > the long run so I prefer not to do that. > > > > It seems to me that many modules have changed between the 2.4 and 2.6 > > kernels, so anyone hoping for a 3.x -> 4.x upgrade that "just works" > > with respect to module loading is going to be disappointed. Adding a > > further step to an upgrade to cope with a name change on one file is not > > so bad, IMHO. We can cover it in the upgrade documentation. > > > > I am happy for us to rename /etc/modules if that is the least bad thing > > to do. > > Three men, four opinions - this is the sort of responses, that will not help > Andrew :)) > > For shure an easy upgrade is impossible with such a major change. > But go with an unchanged /etc/modules, and a patched bb, won't change > anything > for current code and users who doesn't want to deal with hwdetect - see > Erichs > mail yesterday. > > But why do you think that a bb patch will lead to more confusion? We've had > always added patches to bb, and it doesn't lead to confusion. It's a bit more > work to build a new bb version, but then it helps the users. > > I also believe that the decision of busybox developers to use /etc > /modules > instead /etc/modules.d or /etc/modprobe.d is not the best one they had made. > Usually additional config files are stored in directories, which are > signalled > to the user as with *.d name - so I think a bb patch just moves bb to a > widely > used approach. > > kp
Hi kp, My thinking was that the busybox developers have set a "standard" and we should stick with that if we can, and also that we if have to change then changing now is OK because of so many differences with module loading for 4.x If you disagree with the busybox "standard" then OK, we can patch it, but we should align with some other (better) standard for this exact same function. dMb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Centralized Desktop Delivery: Dell and VMware Reference Architecture Simplifying enterprise desktop deployment and management using Dell EqualLogic storage and VMware View: A highly scalable, end-to-end client virtualization framework. Read more! http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-eql-dev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
