From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 20 15:39:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03798 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:39:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles232.castles.com [208.214.165.232]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03792 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:39:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA04090; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:36:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901202336.PAA04090@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Archie Cobbs cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KLD naming In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:46:36 PST." <199901202046.MAA23549@bubba.whistle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:36:14 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [KLD module file locations] > I was just pointing out that having things in subdirectories > is better than having a zillion files piled into a single directory. I'm torn between agreeing that it's tidier and disagreeing on the grounds that it's much more of a pain to administer. "Where is that damnned module?" "Why am I loading a stale version of saver_foo?", etc. As a rule when I'm thinking about KLDs I look at the way that MacOS manages inits/extensions. That's a model that's survived over a decade of use by generally fairly clueless users, and hasn't completely irritated the smarter ones either. > > are bad (witness the need to reorganise the kernel source tree). > > Maybe I'm just an optimist.. but if we have already solved (through > various incarnations) how to classify the kernel source, then we can > pretty much inherit this same classification scheme for the modules. The fact that we're trying to reorganise the kernel sources right now tends to indicate to me that we haven't solved this at all. > > A single directory holding module files. > > Blech :-) Put aside the aesthetics for a moment, and try to raise some real, practical objections. I'm continually battling my own temptation to make the whole module thing more complex, but if you've got really good reasons that can justify the extra complexity everywhere I'm still open to suggestions. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message