The merge of module-init-tools with busybox would be a mess. First, insmod, and rmmod appear to be 2.6 compliant from busybox cvs, but the depmod code is not nearly the same as it was in modutils. I think we should take joey's idea and make a module-init-tools-udeb. The maintainer has no issue packaging it with the standard distribution so this should go smoothly.
Here is part of the block I used for building a package with cdbs.
export DH_VERBOSE=1
DEB_INSTALL_DIRS_module-init-tools-udeb := etc/modprobe.d/arch
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk
install/module-init-tools-udeb::
dh_install -pmodule-init-tools-udeb insmod insmod.static \
modprobe rmmod depmod modinfo extra/update-modules sbin
dh_install -pmodule-init-tools-udeb lsmod bin
dh_install -pmodule-init-tools-udeb generate-modprobe.conf \
usr/sbin
dh_link -pmodule-init-tools-udeb bin/lsmod sbin/lsmod
dh_install -pmodule-init-tools-udeb modprobe.devfs \
extra/modprobe.conf etc
dh_install -pmodule-init-tools-udeb extra/modprobe.d/aliases \
extra/modprobe.d/crypto etc/modprobe.d
sh -x extra/installarchconf \
debian/module-init-tools-udeb/etc/modprobe.d/arch/
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:03:53AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:36:31PM -0500, Dan Weber wrote:
> > First mode of action is either
> > merging module-init-tools with busybox or, making a udeb of
> > module-init-tools. Since merging would be sufficiently much cleaner
> > thats my reccomended approach. I need some feedback from Waldi on
> > this one.
>
> Upstream already does this, but the debian version currently disabled
> it.
>
> Bastian
>
> --
> A princess should not be afraid -- not with a brave knight to protect her.
> -- McCoy, "Shore Leave", stardate 3025.3
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
