Re: Why are modules and modules.conf not versioned?
On 06-Nov-02, 15:54 (CST), Eric Richardson <eric.richardson@milagrosoft.com> wrote:
> /etc/modules *
> /etc/modules.conf *
>
> * required and necessary as part of the operating kernel but no versions
> to separate differences between versions of kernels since modules are an
> essential part of the kernel.
But in general, you don't *need* version specific modules{.conf}. I've
had the same modulues.conf stuff for years. As I change hardware, I
change the configuration. I typically add stuff, not remove it, as
having "extras" doesn't cause a problem. And if I *do* need a version
specific option, I simply use the tools that the modules.conf 'language'
already provides.
> Proposal to support different module files loaded for different kernel
> versions.
I guess I don't see what this buys you that isn't already provided by
the if-then-elseif-else-endif construct and the include command. In
fact, it seems like a step backwards, because I know have to maintain
seperate files for each version, rather than being able to group things
the way they are actually used.
As for /etc/modules, again, I don't see that it is particularly version
dependent. If you have some kernel versions with more modules than
others, *and* they must be loaded at boot time (rather than 'on-demand'
through modules.conf), then simply add them to /etc/modules. If they
exist, they get loaded. If not, they don't. What's the problem?
(As a side note, I guess I've always figured that if it's vital enough
to be in /etc/modules, why is it modularized in the first place? Yes,
for distribution kernels, sure, but once you start building you're own,
then why bother?)
> That's about it. Hopefully this gives a clearer picture of what I'm
> talking about.
Apparently not, as I still don't see what problem you have that isn't
solved by the existing tools.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: