On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:36:32PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: | Jeremy C. Reed wrote: | | > On Tue, 5 May 2009, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: | > > I'm also thinking if it's worth to split module files | > > from base.tgz into an independent module.tgz or so. | > > (though we also have to modify sysinst(8) too) | > | > Or the modules could be included in the kernel tar file. Or would it be | > okay for user using sysinst to choose different kernel and different | > modules sets? | | IIUC all modules should not depend on each kernel config. | (I'm not sure about misc DIAGNOSTIC/DEBUG options though) | Then, if all sets are come from the same source tree | I don't think it could cause any problem to put an independent | module set file into installation files. I think we need to resolve the issue of the location of the modules before we start adding 'modules' support to build.sh and creating new set tar files. I am not alone in being unhappy with the current path naming scheme and location of the modules and the resulting lossage (and lack of useful diagnostics) that occurs when you install a new kernel without the modules. I should (re)start a (separate) discussion on this naming topic. cheers, Luke.
Description: PGP signature