Hmm I always reply in a top post way since I see it as a faster way to get the answer from the person without having to continuously scroll down. Also the quoted text (below the post) is history. It is only Hmm I always reply in a top post way since I see it as a faster way to get the answer from the person without having to continuously scroll down. Also the quoted text (below the post) is history. It is only there as reference of the conversation, while what is at the top is the current trend. I will bottom-post from now on since I'm assuming that's what the Arch community uses. as reference of the conversation, while what is at the top is the current trend. I will bottom-post from now on since I'm assuming that's what the Arch community uses. On Dec 29, 2011 3:56 AM, "Oon-Ee Ng" <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the response, but please don't top-post =)
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@gmail.com> wrote:
I would go with either
/lib/modules/extramodules/<kernel>/
or
/lib/modules/<kernel>/extramodules/
But maybe this is just semantics and I'm just picky about directory structure.
To make it clear, I'm not asking about changing where 'extramodules' goes, as that's up to the devs. I'm asking whether my package (and my own scripts) should be using the 'general' extramodules folder (which they would in the end no matter what).
Your first suggestion doesn't make sense because that would defeat the purpose of having 'extramodules' in the first place (so minor kernel version updates do not need rebuilding of modules). The second one is currently symlinked to /lib/modules/extramodules-<kernel>
I referred to the first location since I was looking at it more from a dedicated folder view, where each subject gets its own folder. Maybe you could lower the location by one and noe touch it if its a minor revision. /lib/modules/<kernel>/ /lib/extramodules/<kernel>/ There may also be a symlink from the extramodule dir to the corresponding kernel in the modules dir to connect them together.