Am 26.01.2014 19:37, schrieb Tom Gundersen: >> So, should we just apply the patch and leave it as a module, or should >> we make it built-in again and close >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/27555 as "Won't fix"? > > So I'm obviously biased, but I'd prefer if we kept this as a module. > Given the problem you ran into, I see two options: inform about the > possible need to force-load the module in a post-install message (if > we work from the assumption that it will be a rare issue). Or, if the > problem appears to be more wide-spread, simply ship a modules-load.d > fragment that will load the module. This will at least will give > people the option to mask the fragment if they don't need the module > to avoid the boot-delays (and spurious error message in dmesg).
For the moment, I'll upload the kernel with the fixed aliases and see what happens. It is no problem to revert to built-in before we move to core.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
