Jean Delvare wrote: >> Author: jwrdegoede >> Date: Fri Jul 6 21:13:50 2007 >> New Revision: 4566 >> Changeset: http://lm-sensors.org/changeset/4566 >> >> Modified: >> lm-sensors/trunk/prog/detect/sensors-detect >> >> Log: >> also recognise /etc/modprobe.conf (Fedora patch) > >> --- /lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-3.0.0/prog/detect/sensors-detect (revision 4562) >> +++ /lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-3.0.0/prog/detect/sensors-detect (revision 4567) >> @@ -2168,6 +2168,8 @@ >> $modules_conf = '/etc/modules.conf'; >> } elsif (-f '/etc/conf.modules') { >> $modules_conf = '/etc/conf.modules'; >> + } elsif (-f '/etc/modprobe.conf') { >> + $modules_conf = '/etc/modprobe.conf'; >> } else { # default >> $modules_conf = '/etc/modules.conf'; >> } > > Very good. We should have done this a long time ago, I think that all > the distributions out there were patching sensors-detect that way. > > I would go even further: > > * We can probably drop support for /etc/conf.modules entirely? > > * If both /etc/modprobe.conf and /etc/modules.conf are present, it is > likely that /etc/modprobe.conf should be used, so I we should test it > first. > > * If neither file is found, the default could depend on the kernel > version. Defaulting to /etc/modules.conf for a 2.6 kernel-based system > is rather unlikely to be correct. > I fully agree, with all of the above. My perl-foo is not all that good, so the last bullet / point (default depending on kernel version) is probably best handled by someone else. I can implement the other 2 points if you want, but those are so trivial that when someone does 3 he can easily do them too, eitherway let me know. Regards, Hans
