On Wednesday 06 May 2009 04:37:20 Alan Jenkins wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 May 2009 16:58:42 Robby Workman wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Robby Workman wrote: > >>> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Alan Jenkins wrote: > >>>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Robby Workman wrote: > >>>>> generate-modprobe.conf | 281 > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> If you look at "git-log generate-modprobe.conf", you see it's had > >>>> multiple patches submitted this year. Now, given the history of m-i-t > >>>> development, it's possible that the patches were just extremely > >>>> delayed and no-one will care if you delete it. But I think you should > >>>> CC the patch authors and find out why they cared enough to submit them > >>> > >>> Okay, fair enough, but it's my understanding that all of the backwards > >>> compat stuff for older modutils is being removed, and since part of the > >>> aim of this patchset was to help in that regard, generate-modprobe.conf > >>> had to go. :-) I'm hoping Jon will weigh in on this, but if not, I'll > >>> check with the other authors. > >> > >> CC'd Martin Schlemmer and Mike Frysinger on this > > > > ugh, m-i-t changed mailing lists yet again w/out any notice. can someone > > please post an announce to the old mailing list. > > It was sent to the old mailing list. It's possible it wasn't working at > the time. I can't link you to a web archive since they had definitely > stopped working by that point, so I've attached my copy to this message. good enough for me. can always assume i failed and missed it in my inbox as well. thanks for the forward. > >> guys, do you know of > >> some reason that this should stay? From what I've gathered on IRC with > >> Jon and others, all of the backwards-compat stuff with old modutils is > >> essentially gone (or will be soon), so I don't see a reason for the > >> generate-modprobe.conf file to hang around. Perhaps I'm missing > >> something though, so here's your chance :-) > > > > ideally, genereate-modprobe.conf should go away, but there are still > > packages out there that only do /etc/modules.d/. if we assume distros > > are taking care of them to convert to modprobe.d/, then no, we no longer > > need generate- modprobe.conf. Gentoo has converted most packages, but > > there's still a small handful left ... > > That's interesting to know. If it's still being used for development > but not migrating live systems, there might be reasons to keep it - but > we could still strip out all the references to it from the documentation. how about: - include it in tarball but stop installing it - stop mentioning it in documentation - add note to NEWS or whatever about it being long overdue for deprecation - stop mentioning modules.* beyond a historical foot note in the modprobe.* pages - have `modprobe` whine when it sees modprobe.* -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
