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

Bug#415703: marked as done (/etc/modules has no function/should be deleted)



Your message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:09:50 +0100
with message-id <20070321120950.GA20117@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net>
and subject line Bug#415703: /etc/modules has no function/should be deleted
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: general

/etc/modules is not owned by any package, and its content is ignored when building an initrd image. I just checked. By default the module loop is defined in /etc/modules, but it is not included in my new initrd image.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
also sprach Olaf Zaplinski <o.zaplinski@broadnet.de> [2007.03.21.1239 +0100]:
> /etc/modules is not owned by any package, and its content is ignored when 
> building an initrd image. I just checked. By default the module loop is 
> defined in /etc/modules, but it is not included in my new initrd image.

initrd images use /etc/initramfs-tools/modules or
/etc/initrd-tools/modules. /etc/modules is used by
/etc/rc2.d/S20module-init-tools to load modules during startup.
Files in /etc need not all be owned by packages.

Closing this bug.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)


--- End Message ---

Reply to: