Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
On 1/11/18 12:39 PM, Bruno Pagani wrote: ... ... because the new version of those packages won’t have the dir anymore. Regards, Bruno Ding ... duh of course ... thank you both for your patience ...
Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
Le 11/01/2018 à 18:35, Genes Lists via arch-general a écrit : > On 1/11/18 12:15 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > .. >> *What* directory removal logic??? >> >> pacman -Qo /usr/lib/modules/extramodules-4.14-ARCH/ >> >> Anyway, see how Red Hat uses "weak modules" in much the same way. >> >> > > When linux is updated to 4.15 the old 4.14.13-1-ARCH modules directory > will be removed and I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the same is > true for the extramodules-4.14 directory. I guessed, perhaps wrongly, > that both of these were mediated by pacman hooks in > /usr/share/libapm/hooks/xxx. > > Otherwise we'd have a slew of unused directories building up in > /usr/lib/modules. In fact this did happen I believe a long time back. That was indeed the case a long time ago for modules built with DKMS, but now they are hooks for this, in the dkms package that is. But if you have no DKMS modules, the directory is directly part of the packages you use (kernel + extra modules) and will be removed by pacman itself as part of upgrading the corresponding packages, because the new version of those packages won’t have the dir anymore. Regards, Bruno signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
On 1/11/18 12:15 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: .. *What* directory removal logic??? pacman -Qo /usr/lib/modules/extramodules-4.14-ARCH/ Anyway, see how Red Hat uses "weak modules" in much the same way. When linux is updated to 4.15 the old 4.14.13-1-ARCH modules directory will be removed and I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the same is true for the extramodules-4.14 directory. I guessed, perhaps wrongly, that both of these were mediated by pacman hooks in /usr/share/libapm/hooks/xxx. Otherwise we'd have a slew of unused directories building up in /usr/lib/modules. In fact this did happen I believe a long time back. Thanks for explanations. gene
Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
On 01/11/2018 11:27 AM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > On 1/11/18 9:45 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > ... >> >> Because the extramodules directory is designated for thirdparty modules >> that are believed to be compatible with any kernel patch release of the >> same major.minor version. If the module needs to be recompiled with >> patch releases, it should be installed to the "main" modules directory. >> > > Terrific thank you. > > Do you know where the directory removal logic is managed? > > /usr/share/libalpm/60-linux.hook doesn't seem reveal much to my eye - it > treats 4.14.13-1-ARCH and extramodules-4.14-ARCH indistinguishably. When > linux is updated to 4.15 extramodules gets removed somehow but not with > a minor update. *What* directory removal logic??? pacman -Qo /usr/lib/modules/extramodules-4.14-ARCH/ Anyway, see how Red Hat uses "weak modules" in much the same way. -- Eli Schwartz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
On 1/11/18 9:45 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: ... Because the extramodules directory is designated for thirdparty modules that are believed to be compatible with any kernel patch release of the same major.minor version. If the module needs to be recompiled with patch releases, it should be installed to the "main" modules directory. Terrific thank you. Do you know where the directory removal logic is managed? /usr/share/libalpm/60-linux.hook doesn't seem reveal much to my eye - it treats 4.14.13-1-ARCH and extramodules-4.14-ARCH indistinguishably. When linux is updated to 4.15 extramodules gets removed somehow but not with a minor update. Thanks. gene
Re: [arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
On 01/11/2018 09:09 AM, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: > The linux package creates 2 directories; for example: > > /usr/lib/modules/4.14.13-1-ARCH > /usr/lib/modules/extramodules-4.14-ARCH > > Question - Why is the latter not named extramodules-4.14.13-1-ARCH? > > Both are owned by the linux-4.14.13 package - and extramodules-4.14-ARCH > will also be owned by the next linux-4.14.14 package and so on. > > Perhaps it is something to do with 3rd party packages which install > things in extramodules? Because the extramodules directory is designated for thirdparty modules that are believed to be compatible with any kernel patch release of the same major.minor version. If the module needs to be recompiled with patch releases, it should be installed to the "main" modules directory. -- Eli Schwartz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[arch-general] Is linux extramodules dir named most appropriately?
The linux package creates 2 directories; for example: /usr/lib/modules/4.14.13-1-ARCH /usr/lib/modules/extramodules-4.14-ARCH Question - Why is the latter not named extramodules-4.14.13-1-ARCH? Both are owned by the linux-4.14.13 package - and extramodules-4.14-ARCH will also be owned by the next linux-4.14.14 package and so on. Perhaps it is something to do with 3rd party packages which install things in extramodules? thanks. gene
