>Obviously this has to be a gradual changeover to allow users,
>distributions and other packages that refer to conf.modules to convert
>to the standard name.
Why? Renaming conf.modules to modules.conf ist trivial, so why make
so much effort (and code) about it?
I'd omit the following:
>Starting with modutils-2.3.4, it will :-
>
>(a) Try to read from modules.conf first. This is inconsistent with 2.2
> and earlier versions of 2.3 but it is consistent with modutils-2.1
> which is the only version on most distributions.
>
>(b) If modules.conf does not exist, read conf.modules. Issue a warning
> message recommending that it be renamed to modules.conf. modules
> will load.
>
>(c) If both files exist and conf.modules is not a hard link or symlink
> to modules.conf, issue a warning message that tells the user which
> file was read and recommends the removal of conf.modules. modules
> will load.
>
>(d) If neither file exists, use the builtin default list.
and do just this right now:
>Starting with modutils-2.5.0 (created when kernel 2.5 is released), it
>will :-
>
>(a) Only read from modules.conf.
>
>(b) If modules.conf does not exist but conf.modules does exist then
> issue an error message requiring that conf.modules be renamed to
> modules.conf. Modules will not load.
>
>(c) If both files exist, issue an error message requiring the user to
> put all the data in modules.conf and erase conf.modules. It does
> not matter if conf.modules is a link, it must be removed. Modules
> will not load.
>
>(d) If neither file exists, use the builtin default list.
Regards,
hjb
-- You feel strangely lucky... http://hjb-net.de/ - Linux help and links- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/