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

Re: RFC: extra kernel module install locations

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 09:51:04PM +0300, Ville Skyttà wrote:
> There are various practices around about where to install extra kernel
> modules, I thought I'd throw in a quick RFC about what people think is
> the best practice, and why.  Some alternatives off the cuff:
> 0) Somewhere directly below /lib/modules/$uname, in a per-package 
>    subdir.
> 1) A suitable location below /lib/modules/$uname/kernel.
> 2) /lib/modules/$uname/updates, mirroring the dir structure from
>    /lib/modules/$uname/kernel as applicable.
> 3) Same as 2), but s/updates/$something_else_than_updates/.

3a) lkml style is s/updates/extra/, but last time I checked it
    flattened the directory structure (in contrast to 2).

> 4) As long as it Just Works(tm), does not matter.
> 5) Insert your favourite here.

> Status of how things seem to be "out there" currently, based on a very
> brief look:
> - fedora.us: both 0 (for thinkpad) and 1 (for alsa)
> - livna.org, Dag, freshrpms (FC1/alsa only checked): 1
> - ATrpms: 2
> - CCRMA uses something that doesn't fit 100% any of the above,
>   but I guess 2 would be the closest.
> My .02â of the above:
> 0) Yuck, gets messy.
> 1) IMO shouldn't use "kernel" for stuff that is not included in kernel
>    distributed by the kernel vendor.
> 2) My #1 pick as of now, maybe, depending on 3) below.
> 3) Is this better or worse than 2)?  Dunno.
>    Is "updates" the only dir that Just Works in earlier distro versions?
>    Is using "updates" more or less likely to cause conflicts
>    than "extra" or something else?  Is it a bad thing to put all these
>    extra modules to "updates", when the vast majority of them are not
>    updates per se, but "new" modules instead (in the sense that they're
>    not included in the vendor's kernel)?
> 4) I would feel more comfortable with some kind of documented guidelines
>    or best practices, for consistency.
> Comments?

I think I'd prefer 2) ;)

I am not really happy with the name of "updates", due to the reasons
you state above, but it has already become traditional, is used by
other distros (at least SuSE) as well, some kernel module software
starts changing /extra/ to /updates/ also, and finally modutils give
/updates/ preference over the rest [*] (the latter is technically very
important, any other scheme needs to get modutils adjusted first).

OTOH /extras/ (3a above) is what the kernel developers have currently
blessed, but the flat structure is irritating.

On the linguistic side both updates and extras are sometimes out of
scope. "external" or similar would be more to the point.

There is some inertia toward /updates/ (modutils gives preferencs,
some distros like SuSE already use it, ATrpms uses it ;), some
upstream kernel modules start to use it.

Perhaps this discussion should move to lkml. I think it is important
to have a coherent approach (non-packagers and packagers) here.

[*] this is half true, for FC2-shipped modutils this was forgotten,
but there is a bugzilla entry with appropriate patches that hopefully
made it for FC3.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp00051.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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