Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?
From: Adam Aube (aaube01_at_baker.edu)
Date: 02/19/04
- Previous message: CW Harris: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Maybe in reply to: Darin Strait: "Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Next in thread: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Reply: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:01:55 -0500 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On 18 Feb 2004 at 16:41:36, CW Harris wrote:
> does 2.6 require both? I currently have kept both since I
> have a 2.4 kernel for a rescue boot, but I was planning to
> remove it eventually.
With 2.6, update-modules uses /etc/modutils/* to form
/lib/modules/modprobe.conf, which is included in
/etc/modprobe.conf.
All this is for is some default system mappings. That's why
you keep both, but don't have to worry about maintaining
/etc/modutils.
Adam
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: CW Harris: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Maybe in reply to: Darin Strait: "Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Next in thread: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Reply: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Newbish Q: Why modprobe.d *and* modutils?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|