On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Matt Burgess <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 20:35 -0200, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Matt Burgess >> <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > A plain 'make install' of kmod-4 results in kmod's headers, library and >> > man pages being installed, but not the actual tools. This appears to be >> > because the tools are defined in noinst_SCRIPTS in the Makefile. >> > >> > Could I kindly request that the man pages be installed iff the tools are >> > installed. With the way things are at the moment, it's easier than it >> > should be, IMO, to end up with kmod's man pages and module-init-tools' >> > binaries. >> > >> >> First of all, tools are installed by default: there's only one tool >> named 'kmod' and packagers are supposed to make the symlinks with old >> names. Aren't you getting a 'kmod' binary? > > Ah, right, yes, I get the kmod binary. However, I also saw in the tools > directory, post-build, that the depmod, insmod, lsmod, modinfo, modprobe > and rmmod are all symlinked to kmod-nolib. As kmod-nolib wasn't > installed, I assumed that the others weren't installed/installable > either. > > If, as you say, the other tools can be installed as symlinks against the > kmod binary, then that's all fine. yeah, if you make, for example the symlinks /usr/bin/modprobe -> /usr/bin/kmod /usr/bin/lsmod -> /usr/bin/kmod ... Then you have all the tools (but in only one binary). > Are there plans for the 'make install' target to do this symlinking in > the future, or will it be up to distributors to provide the > compatibility symlinks? We are discussing that... Maybe for next version. It depends how fast we will deprecate module-init-tools. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
