devfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: [Cooker] modules.devfsd addition]

To: Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Cooker] modules.devfsd addition]
From: Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:22:25 +1100
Cc: "'devfs mailing list'" <devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, kaos@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200201290626.g0T6QOZ14180@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>
References: <000001c1a7c3$50d2fb30$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> <20020128063848.E0A5132FE0A@lyta.coker.com.au> <200201290626.g0T6QOZ14180@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>
Reply-to: Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:26, Richard Gooch wrote:
> 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?

No, in the default setup it forms a part of the configuration that's 
eventually used.

> You'd rather see that each package is responsible for their respective
> parts?

Yes, I'd prefer that to be done as much as possible.

> 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.

True.  But if the maintainer is willing then I think that's where it belongs.

> 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.

Good idea.  If this is added to modutils then it would be better than the 
current Debian setup.  I would be happy to write the patch if Keith is 
interested in accepting it...

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/     Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/       Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/     My home page

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>