Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

Guillem Jover wrote: > I'd rather work during this release cycle > on improving the general conffile support. > What about modifying the format of conffiles to allow: [ ] Which would let dpkg know that it should look for and rename it to (usual change-detection should apply); if it doesn't ex

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

I'd forgotten that I submitted a patch to dpkg over a year ago to add a dpkg-conffile(8) utility. Note that the code on the wiki has changed slightly to handle a couple of cases since I wrote dpkg-conffile last year. The wiki version puts a space after $CONFFILE here to work around a bug:

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: Hi, > etc/modprobe.d/libsane libs/libsane Removed in 1.0.19-26. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - Public key available on - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD6

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mar 04, Frans Pop wrote: > > The latest module-init-tool release complains loudly for each one and > > still processes them, but this will change. > Any idea when the warning will be dropped? Upstream says it's not decided yet. Probably not soon, but probably not for two years either. -- cia

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

Marco d'Itri wrote: > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in > /etc/modprobe.d/ will be processed only if they have a .conf suffix. > The latest module-init-tool release complains loudly for each one and > still processes them, but this will change.

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 06:39:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > If the facility is later implemented as a C executable (or whatever) > instead of a shell lib, the shell lib would still have to be shipped in dpkg > so that maintainer scripts don't fail ungracefully when trying to source it. > That

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:55:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:17:00PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile > > has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it > > (when the annoyin

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mar 03, Roger Leigh wrote: > You could easily adapt these expressions and logic (if needed, > they are very general) for use by modprobe. I did this in 2004. Upstream was not interested. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > It's already there: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514316 > > > > I would happily include such a file, though it probably needs some thought > > on the API before we c

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:17:00PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile > has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it > (when the annoying part is the initial introduction of the support, > being there already on

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:09:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:43:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in > > > /etc/modprobe.

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > > > Insert the typical winge here about dpkg conffile renaming code > > > being deployed via cut-n-paste from a wiki page

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is there a chance upstream would accept a patch to implement this as a > blacklist instead of a whitelist? This is how it used to work (and still does). -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

after upgrading module-init-tools in unstable just now the boot process shows a lot of warnings like: modprobe: WARNING: All config files need .conf: /etc/modprobe.d/aliases, it will be ignored in a future release. there is blocks of those lines, one for each file in /modprobe.d, those blocks

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > Insert the typical winge here about dpkg conffile renaming code > > being deployed via cut-n-paste from a wiki page instead of any > > of our better technologies, such as a utility, with

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Insert the typical winge here about dpkg conffile renaming code > being deployed via cut-n-paste from a wiki page instead of any > of our better technologies, such as a utility, with a man page, > in a single package. > It would of c

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:09:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:43:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in > > > /etc/modprobe.d/

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

Thought this would be a good opportunity to remind y'all about dh_installmodules(1), which can handle modprobe.d files in addition to kernel modules. Most packages shipping files in modprobe.d seem to generate the files via echo statements in debian/rules, rather than using it. dh_installmodules w

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:43:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in > > /etc/modprobe.d/ will be processed only if they have a .conf suffix. > What is the point of this cha

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:43:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in > /etc/modprobe.d/ will be processed only if they have a .conf suffix. What is the point of this change, except to force an annoying transition on people?

the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in /etc/modprobe.d/ will be processed only if they have a .conf suffix. The latest module-init-tool release complains loudly for each one and still processes them, but this will change. Please update your packages at the time of your