On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 01:03:03PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > David Holland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 08:57:10PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > > > Regarding the PR/38724, I propose to change the path to "/kernel/". > > > Can we reach some consensus quickly for netbsd-6? > > > > If it's going to be a new toplevel directory, it should probably be > > /modules. > > I do not mind /modules. It is better than /lib{data,exec,}/modules. > However..
Do we really need a new toplevel directory? > > (I know there's an argument that if it's /kernel we could eventually > > put other stuff in there as well besides modules; but all such uses > > are so far entirely conjectural (not even to the stage of being > > vaporware) so I think it's highly premature to plan for them at this > > point.) > > Is there a reason to *not* go with /kernel, besides annoyance of it > being similar to /kern? [..] Please not /kernel as it was already mentioned, it is too similar to /kern. Filename completion would be not easier if you want to use a file from /kern. Either somewhere below /libdata or if you really want a new toplevel directory then it could be /boot which was mentioned, so it match the FreeBSD behaviour. Bernd
