I'm the maintainer of nvidia-beta-all - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31123
The nature of the package is that to provide the nvidia-beta driver for all currently installed kernels. I use some horrible tricks to accomplish that involving scanning the kernel images in /boot
With the recent changes to include the 'extramodules' directory, I recently found time to modify a small portion of the PKGBUILD to place the nvidia.ko files in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*/ directories instead of in /lib/modules/3.1.*/kernel/drivers/video. Saves me (and others) re-building of the package.
I also have my own script which does the same module-building for virtualbox (for all kernels instead of only the running one) which I've been using since before virtualbox-source existed (with its own highly complete and complicated vboxbuild script). While looking at my script and comparing it with vboxbuild from virtualbox-source, I noticed that that script placed modules in /lib/modules/3.1.*-*-ARCH/extramodules rather than in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*-*-ARCH
Is this (the former) location recommended over what I'm currently doing (the latter)?
If I'm not mistaken, placing the module in the former would result in 'left-behind' symlinks/directories in /lib/modules which placing the module in the latter would not?
Thanks for the clarification (and for reading this).
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. On Dec 29, 2011 2:40 AM, "Oon-Ee Ng" ngoonee.talk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm the maintainer of nvidia-beta-all - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31123
The nature of the package is that to provide the nvidia-beta driver for all currently installed kernels. I use some horrible tricks to accomplish that involving scanning the kernel images in /boot
With the recent changes to include the 'extramodules' directory, I recently found time to modify a small portion of the PKGBUILD to place the nvidia.ko files in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*/ directories instead of in /lib/modules/3.1.*/kernel/drivers/video. Saves me (and others) re-building of the package.
I also have my own script which does the same module-building for virtualbox (for all kernels instead of only the running one) which I've been using since before virtualbox-source existed (with its own highly complete and complicated vboxbuild script). While looking at my script and comparing it with vboxbuild from virtualbox-source, I noticed that that script placed modules in /lib/modules/3.1.*-*-ARCH/extramodules rather than in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*-*-ARCH
Is this (the former) location recommended over what I'm currently doing (the latter)?
If I'm not mistaken, placing the module in the former would result in 'left-behind' symlinks/directories in /lib/modules which placing the module in the latter would not?
Thanks for the clarification (and for reading this).
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>
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.
Am Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:12:53 -0500 schrieb Jonathan Vasquez jvasquez1011@gmail.com:
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.
Full quotes are as bad as top posts.
An e-mail doesn't need to and shouldn't contain the full correspondence history. It just shall contain the quotes to which the answer refers.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote
This way it's not necesary to always scroll down pages.
Heiko
You are correct. I just let my email application automatically handle the quoting. On Dec 29, 2011 3:47 PM, "Heiko Baums" lists@baums-on-web.de wrote:
Am Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:12:53 -0500 schrieb Jonathan Vasquez jvasquez1011@gmail.com:
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.
Full quotes are as bad as top posts.
An e-mail doesn't need to and shouldn't contain the full correspondence history. It just shall contain the quotes to which the answer refers.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote
This way it's not necesary to always scroll down pages.
Heiko
Am Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:56:21 -0500 schrieb Jonathan Vasquez jvasquez1011@gmail.com:
You are correct. I just let my email application automatically handle the quoting.
E-mail applications, particularly Google Mail, don't always follow the common standards. So if Google Mail doesn't respect the Netiquette and the common internet standards, you should interfere and refinish what it does automatically or use an e-mail application which do respect the standards. It's pretty easy.
Automation is not always the best way of handling things, not even in the IT. And Google is not always the best company, not even their search engine.
Heiko
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 14:01, Heiko Baums lists@baums-on-web.de wrote:
E-mail applications, particularly Google Mail, don't always follow the common standards. So if Google Mail doesn't respect the Netiquette and the common internet standards, you should interfere and refinish what it does automatically or use an e-mail application which do respect the standards. It's pretty easy.
I don't see that Gmail does anything wrong. It starts you off at the top of the email, yes — this lets you select what quoted material you wish to keep, because Gmail can't possibly know what you want to respond to. Perhaps Gmail could start you off at the bottom of the email, or not quote anything by default and just present you with a blank slate, but either of these ends up requiring more effort than the default behaviour.
This is a purely a matter of netiquette, and can't be blamed on the application.
~Celti
On Dec 30, 2011 5:14 AM, "Patrick Burroughs" celticmadman@gmail.com wrote:
This is a purely a matter of netiquette, and can't be blamed on the
application.
~Celti
While top-posting discussions are interesting and all, I'd really prefer an answer to my initial query on extramodules
Am Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:55:19 +0800 schrieb Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.talk@gmail.com:
While top-posting discussions are interesting and all, I'd really prefer an answer to my initial query on extramodules
/lib/modules/3.1.*-*-ARCH/extramodules rather than in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*-*-ARCH
I would prefer the second one, because the first one is a symlink to the second one. So I guess the official path is the second one. And the second patch isn't changed with every minor kernel update.
Heiko
This is something I wanted to ask too, cause I'm dealing with wacom-drivers package - and there I have an updated version of standard module. For now I use
/lib/modules/3.1.*-*-ARCH/updates
for this purpose and it works, but there is no
/lib/modules/updates-3.1/
so users need to rebuild after every minor version. I though, that since in depmod.d there is file with
search updates extramodules built-in
I would be able to use extramodules-3.1 to override default kernel module, but it turned out it is not enough:
[giniu@raven3 3.1.5-1-ARCH]$ pwd /lib/modules/3.1.5-1-ARCH [giniu@raven3 3.1.5-1-ARCH]$ find extramodules/ extramodules/ extramodules/wacom.ko extramodules/nvidia.ko.gz extramodules/version extramodules/wacom_w8001.ko [giniu@raven3 3.1.5-1-ARCH]$ modinfo wacom | head -n 1 filename: /lib/modules/3.1.5-1-ARCH/kernel/drivers/input/tablet/wacom.ko.gz
as you see, it still uses default one (I performed depmod -a). So, is there any way to not only place new modules without requiring users to rebuild every time, but also update modules that way? I don't know if I missed something obvious, or something... anyone got it working?
Andrzej.
/lib/modules/3.1.*-*-ARCH/extramodules rather than in /lib/modules/extramodules-3.1.*-*-ARCH
I would prefer the second one, because the first one is a symlink to the second one. So I guess the official path is the second one. And the second patch isn't changed with every minor kernel update.
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org