Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:12 +0200 From: martinko <gamato@pobox.sk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: man hier? -- FreeBSD Port: sysutils/fusefs-kmod Message-ID: <45300438.60809@pobox.sk> In-Reply-To: <1160734160.81679.8.camel@mayday.esat.net> References: <452E6E3C.7070604@pobox.sk> <1160734160.81679.8.camel@mayday.esat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Florent Thoumie wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:33 +0200, martinko wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I wonder what is the reasoning behind fusefs-kmod port way of dealing >> with kernel module(s). >> I remember iwi ports putting their modules into /boot/modules and then >> one only had to edit /boot/loader.conf[.local] >> Now fusefs-kmod creates new directory /usr/local/modules where it puts >> its module, then it optionally edit /etc/sysctl.conf to modify >> kern.module_path and rc.conf to run /usr/local/etc/rc.d/fusefs script. >> Is all of this really necessary and why please ?? > > It makes the port/package PREFIX-clean. I could have done that for intel > firmware ports but I thought it would be too painful for the end-user. > I see. It's just that it feels too complicated and it doesn't look very nice to me, either. :-/ So is /usr/local/modules the final location of 3rd party modules? I mean was it agreed on or any port can choose it's own directory? Also, it seems to me like too much overhead to create rc.d script for each such a port only to allow it to load kernel module. I mean couldn't we have something like there's for local libraries or rc scripts? The paths are already preset. Well, I only would like to see it simplified and standardised somehow. But I'm pretty sure you guys will come up with a good solution. Thanks for your effort. Regards, Martin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45300438.60809>