Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber.
The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list.
Oh yeah, I just replied that it was a neat idea. I didn't really think of it one way or another.
So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a modprobe.d file?
I'm really ambivalent about this. I think it's easier to autogenerate the modprobe.d file, and it doesn't need to be regenerated every time the modules change (in the off chance that new modaliases are added to the modules). I agree with Aaron here, the module aliases may change more often then the module names.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org