On 2011-12-19 21:46 +0100, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> severity 652672 wishlist
> thanks
>
> On 19.12.2011 22:52, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Package: busybox
>> Version: 1:1.19.3-5
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Unlike the modprobe utility from module-init-tools, busybox' version
>> fails for built-in modules:
>>
>> ,----
>> | % grep ext4 /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/modules.builtin
>> | kernel/fs/ext4/ext4.ko
>> | % sudo modprobe ext4
>> | % sudo busybox modprobe ext4
>> | modprobe: module ext4 not found in modules.dep
>> `----
>>
>> This leads to annoying error messages on boot.
>
> This is what -q option is for, and it always worked this way
> initially. Later modprobe in m-i-t changed behavour, but it
> is not really necessary to follow this - IMHO anyway. After
> all, you requested to load a module and modprobe can't do that,
> hence I think m-i-t is wrong here.
I don't think so, because modprobe also succeeds when you try to load a
module that is already loaded, and with builtins you have really the
same situation -- asking for functionality that is already available.
> Besides, it works just fine here, no annoying error messages
> like that.
It likely only happens with self-built kernels, since official Debian
kernels have pretty much everything built as a module.
> I'd close this bug right away but I want to hear your opinion
> first, hence downgrading it to wishlist - since the behavour
> is correct.
I disagree (see above), but I can understand the need to keep busybox
small. Alas, initramfs-tools do not use the -q option.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ty4wi80p....@turtle.gmx.de
