>
> Russell Coker writes:
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:16, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> > > I too think that implementing per-package addition would be really
nice.
> > > But I am strongly against editing single monolithic configuration
file.
> > > If we ever have per-package config - please, implement support for
> > > /etc/devfsd.d directory where packages can drop config files as
needed.
> >
> > Devfsd already has support for that. If an OPTIONAL_INCLUDE or
> > INCLUDE line references a directory then all files in that directory
> > will be included. This is used in the default setup for Debian to
> > include files in the directory /etc/devfs/conf.d/ .
> >
> > As for modules, this is done in Debian by having a script named
> > update-modules which produces a file /etc/modules.conf from files in
> > the directory /etc/modutils/ .
>
> So do you think that the modules.devfs file that I ship is useless?
> You'd rather see that each package is responsible for their respective
> parts?
>
> While that may have some benefits, it requires that all packages
> install configuration files for devfsd. Some package maintainers may
> have no interest in devfs. By shipping modules.devfs with devfsd, I
> can increase the chance of things actually working.
>
modules.devfs actually serves as replacement for built-in aliases in
modprobe. So I believe it should contain the same set of aliases by
default - after all you do not recompile modutils every time kernel is
reconfigured. May be it even should be built as part of modutils and
serve as good reference to device names used in kernel.
That said, I do not suggest adding every possible third-part module like
nVidia or vmware of course.
> I must say I dislike the script idea you have in Debian. I think it's
> much cleaner for modutils to take care of this. If you specify a
> directory for the "include" directive, it should recursively process
> all files in that directory.
>
> Keith?
>
I second it.
-andrej
|