On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:17:37PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: | > 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 don't see any reason why the location should be discussed | before spliting out module sets from base.tgz. Nevertheless | where modules will be moved, modules are already in base.tgz. Unless my suggestion was to add the modules into the kernel sets. Which it is. | > I am not alone in being unhappy with the current path naming | > scheme and location of the modules and the resulting lossage | | I believe independent module set files from base.tgz | reduce the lossage because kernel modules should be installed | before userland binaries, especially shared libs that are also | in base.tgz. (we can also provide module.tgz symlink in binary/kernel) No disagreement there. I'm just advocating for making the change once, rather than adding a new set that might end up being replaced in the near future. | > (and lack of useful diagnostics) that occurs when you install | > a new kernel without the modules. | | BTW, I think bootloader should warn more loudly (with some wait) | if it fails to load modules for root file system... Seems sensible. cheers, Luke.
Description: PGP signature