On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 20:57 +0200, MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote: > W dniu 20 wrzeÅnia 2010 20:47 uÅytkownik drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ: > > 2010/9/20 MichaÅ Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> W dniu 20 wrzeÅnia 2010 20:03 uÅytkownik drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ: > >>> Why? > >>> The file is obsolete for a while now, apps that rely on it if any > >>> should crash and burn and use the proper interface (/etc/modprobe.d) > >>> I can't think of a reason why "someone will change this again". > >> > >> In the same way that someone reverted a vulnerability fix in kernel > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/15/linux_kernel_regression_bug/ > > > > Err.... by that logic we can't fix a bug ever because someone might > > revert the fix. (Or I am missing what you are trying to say). > > I mean, fix can not be reduced to ignoring this file in modprobe, > because this case is not a modprobe problem. You can try to fix this > issue in modprobe, but such a solution can not be fully entrust :) > > Sorry, my English will never be good enough to enough clearly > formulate thoughts :) Right. I get what you're trying to say. Yes, indeed, whatever is creating the legacy file should stop doing that. Are we sure it's not anaconda doing it during installation? Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
