[arch-projects] [initscripts][udev][RFC] first step towards removing load-modules.sh

Thomas Bächler thomas at archlinux.org
Tue May 10 09:08:21 EDT 2011

Am 10.05.2011 15:02, schrieb Dave Reisner:
> I'm going to argue that we should be going the install /bin/false route,
> as it more accurately mimics what we currently do with load-modules.sh.
> This does have the drawback that if a user really does in fact want to
> install a given module, they need to run modprobe with -i. I don't
> recall if load-modules.sh allows explicit installation of a "blacklisted"
> module.

'blacklist' is fine. It usually only blacklists aliases of a module, but
udev uses 'modprobe -b', which blacklists the module name as well - this
is the behaviour I was trying to mimic with load-modules.sh.

> As I mentioned to you on your GH pull request, I'm still a bit weary of
> starting up a symlink farming business in /run. I would love to see
> module-init-tools support for reading from /run/modprobe.d, but perhaps
> that's a bit of an exotic request. With the FHS revived and gearing up
> for a release, it seems likely that /run will be standardized, but I'm
> not sure if that has any clout here.

If we could just have a statement like
 include /run/modprobe.d/
in a modprobe config file. At least nothing like this is documented.

> semi-random aside: does anyone other than systemd support
> /etc/modules-load.d?

What is that supposed to do?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/attachments/20110510/f2a3c38a/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-projects mailing list