On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: > I have someone who is trying to use update-alternatives with kernel modules. > > They discovered that the rename code changes the name of the module to end > in .ko.${BPN}. While the package.bbclass code specifically looks for the > file name to end in '.ko' in order to avoid stripping the modules... so of > course the modules get stripped and no longer work properly. > > So my question is, is it even reasonable to use update-alternatives with > kernel modules? If it is, we probably need to change the trigger in > packages.bbclass to look for either .ko or .ko.${BPN} (or something > similar). > > Any comments/suggestions?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what they are trying to achieve. Can you describe it from a non-packaging point of view ? i.e. do they have two kernel modules that provide the same sort of services to the kernel and they want to switch between the two of them based on the alternatives mechanism ? Cheers, Bruce > --Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
