Re: modules.conf vs conf.modules
Quoting Kent West (westk@acu.edu):
> However, I don't have an "/etc/conf.modules" file on my system. I do
> have an "/etc/conf.modules.old" and an "/etc/modules.conf". So my basic
> question still stands. Which file is to be used? The documentation
> mentioned above says "conf.modules"; the fresh install of Debian
> followed by an update to Potato has "modules.conf". Other documentation
> in that directory says "modules.conf". Again, there's no clear statement
> of which to use and why.
Slink installed conf.modules, potato installed modules.conf .
I don't see how the developers can be expected to change all the
documentation instanteously, especially as much of it comes from
upstream. (Apart from the fact that many of us have been running
a mixture of both for some time.)
2.0.x uses kerneld, 2.2.x uses kmod. (That may be an oversimplification.)
Again, this cuts across the slink/potato boundary, as many of us have
been running 2.2 kernels on slink.
> Some of the documentation in this directory talks about kerneld; other
> seems to indicate that kmod has replaced kerneld. The one that talks
> about kerneld ("README.kerneld.gz") says to empty out the "/etc/modules"
> files except for the line "auto"; wow! what brokenness that created on
> my system.
Yes, you do need a well maintained conf.modules.conf file to be able
to do that, and it's not always to your advantage for modules to be
loading and unloading all the time.
> Wait... I just found this line in "Changelog.Debian.gz": "Update various
> scripts to note that conf.modules is now called modules.conf". This
> indicates that the file is indeed now called "modules.conf", but gives
> no clue as to why. Does Debian's use of the new name conflict with some
> standard?
I don't keep abreat of the file standards, but it does seem confusing
to have two equally ranked names. I admire Debian/linux's willingness
to clean up anachronisms to improve and clarify the system, rather than
trying to never change anything.
> Can I delete my "/etc/conf.modules.old" file without worry?
I would think so. If you're now using modules.conf, there's a one-level
backup produced by update-modules called modules.conf.old as you would
expect. It's only there for use by you if you made a mistake, not by
the system.
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: