On Sunday 25 November 2007 05:28:30 Miguel Gea Milvaques wrote: > En/na Kel Modderman ha escrit: > > Package: et131x-source > > > > The claim that modprobing the module unconditionally for the sake of > > usability is not really strong. The best thing for a user is automatic > > installation of this module via the conglomerate module packages, along > > with the linux-image package. In this case it would be ridiculous to have > > every out of tree driver that is part of the conglomerate to modprobe > > itself. > > This module is *not* part of main kernel tree. This is why it's not in > linux-image package.
The conglomerate package, linux-modules-extra, is a collection of *out of tree* modules. http://blog.daniel-baumann.ch/2006/12/10#20061210_kernel-modules-packaging This is where to fulfill your below argument. > > The Debian Social Contract in its point 4 says: > > *4.- Our priorities are our users and free software > * > Only a few users doesn't like this behaviour. If you install the built > module is in order to use it. > And if you install it in a chroot, again, I supose you are going to use > it. If you want to debug or > other things, then this package is not for you. > > > Another use case is installation of module binary package in a live > > debian cd chroot, automatic modprobe of module makes no sense in the > > build chroot. > > > > Unconditional modprobe of out of tree kernel drivers does not scale to > > all possible uses of the module source package, so I could only plead > > with you that you could change your mind about this cheap, one-time > > executed, small piece of code. > > It does not scale to all possible uses, but it do it for most users. Once, at installation time. We have udev for loading modules automagically... Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
