RFC: extra kernel module install locations

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Mon Sep 13 14:42:52 UTC 2004


Hi *

Am Sonntag, den 12.09.2004, 21:51 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> 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/.
> 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)

For alsa (and some other things at livna.org) I decided to install it
there, where the module would have been installed by the original
scripts during a normal install. 

[...]

> 0) Yuck, gets messy.
++

> 1) IMO shouldn't use "kernel" for stuff that is not included in kernel
>    distributed by the kernel vendor.

I don't think it's a problem. I think installing the module exactly at
the same place where it normally would have been installed when you
compile it also has a lot of benefits.

> 2) My #1 pick as of now, maybe, depending on 3) below.

But do we really need to mirror the stucture? Is there any benefit in
doing so? Why not a simple per-package dir? 

Otherwise I don't have any strong opinions. I tend a bit more to 1), but
can also live with either 2) or 3)   


-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list