Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 05:48:28PM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > "Keith" == Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Keith> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, "Jeff V. Merkey" > Keith> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Keith, > >> > >> Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in a

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

> "Keith" == Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Keith> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, "Jeff V. Merkey" Keith> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Keith, >> >> Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future >> versions of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with >

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:11:49AM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without > > > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch > > > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It > > > actuall

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

> > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without > > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch > > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It > > actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing. > > -

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 07:46:43PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > Anaconda is open sourced, so it's not technically tied to any one > distributor any more Technically, yes it is opensourced. But one of the things that does kinda distinguish one distro from another is the installer[1]. So

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:16:26PM -0800, David Ford wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote: > > > I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard > > > utils to account for distro handling. > > > > Great. The

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:23:08AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, > "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Keith, > > > >Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions > >of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:15:02PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > > Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches. > > They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours > > rewritin

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote: > > I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard > > utils to account for distro handling. > > Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches. > They wi

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:46:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'}, > > > > I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions > > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without > it. If you

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'}, > > I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions > No, but sometimes you really want to be able to. -hpa --

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Keith, > >Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions >of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat and >RedHat derived Linux distributions. I have a big problem with Redh

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches. > They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours > rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this >

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote: > I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard > utils to account for distro handling. Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches. They will say NO. It's a trivial change, a

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard utils to account for distro handling. "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch > that's only th

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:46:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'}, > > I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without it. If you look at the patch, you will note tha

Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

> + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'}, I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

Keith, Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat and RedHat derived Linux distributions. This patch only requires 4 very short changes to depmod.c as opposed to thousands of changes necessary in anacond