On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:01:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> >> --- /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.
I can take care of it. But my initial plan is not correct. My Slackware
system has both /etc/modprobe.conf and /etc/modules.conf... because it
can run with either a 2.4 or a 2.6 kernel, and I actually use both
(it's my test system). In fact, which config file you should edit merely
depends on the kernel version you're running.
So I think I'll go with a more straightforward strategy: if kernel >=
2.6.0, use /etc/modprobe.conf, otherwise use /etc/modules.conf. OK?
--
Jean Delvare
