On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:03:48PM +0100, Jurzitza, Dieter wrote: > Though I agree that the naming I coose is probably not optimal as these > modules are not "persistent" by themselfes, the persistence will last as long > as the ABI compatibility will last. But this in turn gives persistence and > therefore I still think to use "persistence" in the name is not the worst > choice in this regard.
This is not about the name of the directory but about whether it does work or not. > Therefore I do not agree entirely with Roberts arguments. These modules > belong to 2.6.18.2 in the same way as they belong to 2.6.18.8 or any other > 2.6.X kernel that keeps this part of the ABI constant. From what I have > learned they are not initially related to 2.6.18.2. I don't think that it is important whether you agree with me or not as long as you propose to replace a system that works with another system that does not work. > IMHO it is only bad to refer to names of components that are not used any > more in your system (what is true in the very moment you do upgrade now). > Spoken from experience I can hardly remember a SUSE distribution that did not > upgrade the kernel at some point in time. So I'd say this is something that > should be expected. > > In a "generic" sense it would be best to start with soft-linked modules from > the very begin of a distribution, what is in tune with my statement. > > And one could remove the reference to the individual kernel entirely: > Call the directory /lib/modules/persistent from the very begin. Maybe one > would like to use persistent-default / persistent-bigsmp. This does not work because it does not allow installation of multiple kernels with different ABIs. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpRCOxnuub7h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
