From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 21:25:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A7616A412 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EDC43D67 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:25:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GYUX0-00046y-BO for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:26 +0200 Received: from r5h168.net.upc.cz ([86.49.7.168]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:26 +0200 Received: from gamato by r5h168.net.upc.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:26 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: martinko Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:12 +0200 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <45300438.60809@pobox.sk> References: <452E6E3C.7070604@pobox.sk> <1160734160.81679.8.camel@mayday.esat.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: r5h168.net.upc.cz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060923 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 In-Reply-To: <1160734160.81679.8.camel@mayday.esat.net> Sender: news Subject: Re: man hier? -- FreeBSD Port: sysutils/fusefs-kmod X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:25:30 -0000 Florent Thoumie wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:33 +0200, martinko wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I wonder what is the reasoning behind fusefs-kmod port way of dealing >> with kernel module(s). >> I remember iwi ports putting their modules into /boot/modules and then >> one only had to edit /boot/loader.conf[.local] >> Now fusefs-kmod creates new directory /usr/local/modules where it puts >> its module, then it optionally edit /etc/sysctl.conf to modify >> kern.module_path and rc.conf to run /usr/local/etc/rc.d/fusefs script. >> Is all of this really necessary and why please ?? > > It makes the port/package PREFIX-clean. I could have done that for intel > firmware ports but I thought it would be too painful for the end-user. > I see. It's just that it feels too complicated and it doesn't look very nice to me, either. :-/ So is /usr/local/modules the final location of 3rd party modules? I mean was it agreed on or any port can choose it's own directory? Also, it seems to me like too much overhead to create rc.d script for each such a port only to allow it to load kernel module. I mean couldn't we have something like there's for local libraries or rc scripts? The paths are already preset. Well, I only would like to see it simplified and standardised somehow. But I'm pretty sure you guys will come up with a good solution. Thanks for your effort. Regards, Martin