On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: RE>On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:51:57PM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: RE>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: RE>> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:47:59PM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: RE>> > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: RE>> > > RE>> > > > Anyone objects to this patch? RE>> > > RE>> > > Yes - this is the only place to put modules which are not built as part RE>> > > of the kernel, for example /usr/ports/comms/ltmdm. RE>> > > RE>> > This port puts it under /usr/local/share/ltmdm/ltmdm.ko. RE>> RE>> OK, it may have been a bad example, but I prefer having my kernel modules RE>> loaded via the standard loader.conf method rather than using kldload for RE>> modules which I always want to exist. /boot/modules has been documented as RE>> being in the search path for modules for ages now, it seems unnecessary to RE>> change this. I think that we do need somewhere on the root partition where RE>> modules can be kept, without them being lost on the next upgrade. RE>> RE>Yes, the standard search path is /boot/kernel;/boot/modules;/modules. RE>Nevertheless, we don't create /modules, why should we create /boot/modules?
Because then Makefiles don't have to fiddle with creating directories. I don't have a rule for creating /usr/bin in every Makefile that installs into /usr/bin. Why should I have one for /boot/modules? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message