[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

modutils-2.3.11-8 request change



Hello Wichert and debian developers,

I am a relatively new debian user (but long time linux user) and apoligize for
breaking protocol... I have rtfm'ed a lot of debian documentation but still
have a lot more.  I have a suggestion to change the package modutils-2.3.11-8
(from potato).  After (very breifly) scanning my online documentation I could
not find the "procedure" to do this, so I am mailing my suggestion to
debian-devel and the maintainter.

A couple days ago, someone on the debian users list was performing a hack on
their system so it would not print module errors when they booted with their
monolithic kernel (something that should be an acceptable configuration for a
system).  

After looking at the module loading script "/etc/init.d/modutils" I thought it
might be a good idea if it had a check at the beginning to see if the kernel
supported modules or not by looking for the file /proc/modules.  I have not
tested how this would react on a system with modules, but no proc support...
but if a kernel does not have proc support several other things are broken and
don't work anyways.

I made the changes on my system, tested them out and did a "diff -Naur"
between the two version (below).  

what next? (and thanks for your patience)
donfede


########################

    [root@ywing /root]# diff -Naur modutils modutils.new
    --- modutils    Sun Sep 10 23:24:56 2000
    +++ modutils.new        Mon Sep 11 00:09:09 2000
    @@ -2,6 +2,11 @@
     # /etc/init.d/modutils: loads the appropriate modules in `boot'.


    +if ! [ -f /proc/modules ]; then
    +       echo "Kernel does not have module support... not loading modules."
    +       exit 0
    +fi
    +
     PATH="/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin"

            echo -n "Calculating module dependencies... "



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: