Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Will the case described in this message (from the postinst for kernel .debs
> made by kernel-package) still work ok?
No, the majority of kernel module packages are now broken. Might be a
few days until I can get around to fixing dh_installmodules (#301424).
BTW, if a ma
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>> script?
>So I did it. Since yesterday depmod -A is not run at boot time anymore.
Will the case described in this message (from the postinst for kernel .debs
made by kernel-packag
On May 23, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
So I did it. Since yesterday depmod -A is not run at boot time anymore.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hallo Eduard,
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Jörg Sommer [Sat, May 27 2006, 10:59:39PM]:
>
>> > No, they don't. At least my packages call it only if `uname -r` ==
>> > target version. When you drop the depmod run, and someone installs a new
>> > kernel together with accomp
#include
* Jörg Sommer [Sat, May 27 2006, 10:59:39PM]:
> > No, they don't. At least my packages call it only if `uname -r` ==
> > target version. When you drop the depmod run, and someone installs a new
> > kernel together with accompanying module packages and only THEN reboots,
> > the modules.d
On May 28, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > "make install" already runs depmod.
> What if you don't use the 'install' target? I certainly don't. Does the
> 'modules_install' target also run depmod?
Yes.
> I don't claim to
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> "make install" already runs depmod.
What if you don't use the 'install' target? I certainly don't. Does the
'modules_install' target also run depmod? I don't claim to understand what
the comments in the kernel Makefile say about it
Hello Eduard,
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Marco d'Itri [Sat, May 27 2006, 11:29:32AM]:
>
>> > > This is not a choice, every package which installs modules must run
>> > > depmod or they will not be available until a reboot.
>> > Yes. But no package (besides maybe module
On May 27, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This is not a choice, every package which installs modules must run
> > > > depmod or they will not be available until a reboot.
> > > Yes. But no package (besides maybe module-init-tools) should ever run
> > > depmod at boot time. This al
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Sat, May 27 2006, 11:29:32AM]:
> > > This is not a choice, every package which installs modules must run
> > > depmod or they will not be available until a reboot.
> > Yes. But no package (besides maybe module-init-tools) should ever run
> > depmod at boot time. This all
On May 27, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> No, Im asking to have _one_ delay at a defined point instead of X
> >> packages having a delay because they might have to run depmod manualy.
> > This is not a choice, every package which installs modules must run
> > depmod or they w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On May 26, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, Im asking to have _one_ delay at a defined point instead of X
>> packages having a delay because they might have to run depmod manualy.
> This is not a choice, every package which install
On May 26, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, since one cannot run depmod properly without the respective
> kernel being installed, removing the depmod call will caus harm.
Are you sure that this is still true? I believe that this has been fixed
a long time ago.
> It should be p
On May 26, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
> > We already do.
> Eh, typo, should have been "depmod -A". I think this is a sufficiently
> time-optimized version of "depmod -a".
Yes, this is what the script uses.
--
Martin Schulze wrote:
> However, since one cannot run depmod properly without the respective
> kernel being installed, removing the depmod call will caus harm.
Kernels already run depmod when installed, and module packages would
just need to be changed to call depmod with the right parameters to m
On May 26, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, Im asking to have _one_ delay at a defined point instead of X
> packages having a delay because they might have to run depmod manualy.
This is not a choice, every package which installs modules must run
depmod or they will not be ava
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5/25/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> >> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools in
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Thu, May 25 2006, 09:36:11AM]:
> On May 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
> We already do.
Eh, typo, should have been "depmod -A". I think this is a sufficiently
time-optimized version
On May 25, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about having module-init-tools run depmod when needed and have all
> other packages rely on that? That way it would run at most once.
And how would module-init-tools be supposd to know when it would be
needed to run depmod?
--
ciao
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
I guess it would be a time-saver to remove the depmod call.
However, since one cannot run depmod properly without the respective
kernel being installed, removing the depmod call will caus harm
On 5/25/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>> script?
>
> Please go ahead. Anything relying on it
Hello Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>>> script?
>>
>> Please go ahead. Anything rely
#include
* Margarita Manterola [Wed, May 24 2006, 11:56:05PM]:
> >What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
> >only needs to walk trough the directories and stat the files without
> >reading them.
>
> This is what's being done currently, as far as I know, and it takes
On May 25, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Debian, up until the removal of on-boot depmod, you did NOT have to run
> depmod. This is a fact, plain and simple. The fact that this does not hold
Only if you rebooted after manually installing modules, which I think
everyb
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>> script?
>
> Please go ahead. Anything relying on it is buggy anyway.
> --
> .''`. Josselin Mouette
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 24, Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> > > script?
> > What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
> "make install" already runs d
On May 24, Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> > script?
> What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
"make install" already runs depmod.
> my ideal world, there would still be the
On 5/24/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Tue, May 23 2006, 08:52:10PM]:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
only needs to walk trough the dir
On May 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
We already do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:00:34 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
my ideal world, there would still be the option of running depmod at boot;
at the v
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
Please go ahead. Anything relying on it is buggy anyway.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Tue, May 23 2006, 08:52:10PM]:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
only needs to walk trough the directories and stat the files without
reading them.
Ed
So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
script?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
33 matches
Mail list logo
