On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 13:12, John Kacur wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:42, John Kacur wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:25, Américo Wang wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:52:00AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> >>>>The lsmod utility has always been installed into /bin with the newer >>> >>>>module-init-tools package, so let lsmod be found via PATH instead of >>> >>>>hardcoding the old modutils /sbin path. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Some distro doesn't set /sbin to PATH, so for me a better solution >>> >>> would be making PATH contain /sbin, and then use "lsmod". >>> >> >>> >> read my changelog -- module-init-tools has always installed into /bin. >>> >> so what your distro does with /sbin doesnt matter. >>> > >>> > I prefer my patches work for the real-world instead of the "so what >>> > your distro does doesn't matter" world. >>> >>> try reading my comment instead of getting huffy. if you have a distro >>> that does something stupid like break the correct default m-i-t >>> install setup, you should actually point it out. the ones i checked >>> were sane and installed lsmod into /bin (and some symlinked lsmod for >>> backwards compat with modutils into /sbin). >> >> Well, I'm currently running Fedora (10 thru 12), and lsmod is in /sbin >> Your patch would still not break for me because /sbin is in the PATH. >> >> However if Américo is correct that there are distros that have lsmod in >> /sbin and don't have /sbin in the PATH, then your patch would break them. >> You can argue that the distro is doing something stupid, but I'll bet you >> they will blame your patch for breaking them. It seems reasonable to >> me that a distro might only put /sbin in the superuser path, so I can >> imagine there are cases like Américo suggests. > > i am saying they're stupid for doing this, but i'm not saying we > shouldnt support it. the premise for my original patch was that > upstream m-i-t has always used /bin (which means all 2.6 module > handers should be there per upstream), and the downstream distros i > had access to followed upstream's direction. > > sounds like Fedora should have a bug report to get their things fixed > ... there's no reason for `lsmod` to not be in /bin (and everyone's > PATH) since it only reads /proc/modules and that is word readable. This certainly makes sense, but the fact is that lsmod is still there, what is worse, on RHEL (Fedora too, I think) /sbin is not in PATH of my zsh. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
