Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aaron Griffin schrieb: > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Tobias Powalowski schrieb: > > >> > - added framebuffer_blacklist file > > >> > > >> I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting > > >> modaliases. Did I miss something? > > > > > > If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then > > > sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know > > > you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got > > > lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring > > > this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber. > > > > The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user > > (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool > > idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list. > > Oh yeah, I just replied that it was a neat idea. I didn't really think > of it one way or another. > > > So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a > > modprobe.d file? > > I'm really ambivalent about this. I think it's easier to autogenerate > the modprobe.d file, and it doesn't need to be regenerated every time > the modules change (in the off chance that new modaliases are added to > the modules). I agree with Aaron here, the module aliases may change more often then the module names.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
