ons, 06.04.2005 kl. 10.23 skrev Axel Thimm: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:22:25AM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:05:19 +0200 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Having an init.d only with a modprobe is the wrong design. > > > > What makes you say that? How is it different from having an > > /etc/modules.d/ivtv? > > It is not a service and get's loaded early enough. > > > I would say that reflexive, knee-jerk reaction "let's add .d" to any > > problem is a recipe for wrong design which produces > > redundancies. > > Name one :) > > > Don't forget that it's easy to introduce entities, not so easy to > > get rid of them. > > So let's make sure this is a sensible one, which IMHO is very much. > > > > And there are other modules that need to be before any init.d scripts, > > > like capabilities modules whose absence will break named etc. > > > > The named's number is 55. Surely a slot to load capabilities before > > named can be found. > > That's a kludge and tends to break. Do you really want /etc/init.d to > get filled with fake services that all start with 00_*? > > > So far I did not see a good reason to keep /etc/rc.modules around > > in this thread (with a possible exception of pcspkr, because it > > plugs into HID; but even there a smart kernel patch ought to help). > > Who cares about pcspkr, that's cosmetics. No, a mechanism is needed, > if you don't like /etc/rc.modules.d suggest something else, but not > a fake mapping into the services. We could probably map all of > modprobe.conf into /etc/init.d, too. ;) What is that "intitializing sound network storage done [ OK ]" before X11 is loaded do?
