On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
I'm a little bit confused right now. How can I blacklist modules. I have test both, MOD_BLACKLIST=(...) and MODULES=(!...), but both don't work. udev loads every module which can be loaded. For example I blacklist nvidiafb, but udev loads it. Packages are up2date with testing repo.
Can someone please explain it or the status is on this topic?
The status is that I haven't gotten a concise answer. On this. For the time being, I think we should do the following:
a) Rebuild udev 118 with start_udev in there, for the people who keep their systems in some goofy limbo state by only updating singular packages at a time
And add a big old echo at the top saying "You are using start_dev. This script will be removed in a future release!"
Doesn't work. It's run with 2>&1 >/dev/null, which is very good at keeping users uninformed of what's going on.
c) Remove framebuffer module loading from the load-modules script (it should never have been there in the first place). Agreed. What are the hotpoints in this script as well? Something like this seems inefficient: i="$(/sbin/modprobe -i --show-depends $1 | sed "s#^insmod /lib.*/\(.*\)\.ko.*#\1#g" | sed 's|-|_|g')"
We invoke 3 subprocesses here (modprobe, sed, and sed). Surely the two seds can be combined.
already done locally.
See a trend here? So we have the following in one run of load-modules.sh (if we look back at the version packaged with 116):
Good catch with all the seds... but ummm.... how about we NOT worry about optimizing a script we'd like to get rid of? I'm sure start_udev could use some cleanup, want to do that too?