> > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without > > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch > > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It > > actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing. > > -m simply maps to -F. > > It's still a bad precedent. Anaconda should have been written correctly in > the first place. I don't know if its an Anaconda issue or a limitation in the tools. Keith is the modutils maintainer and its up to the Anaconda hackers to prove to him that he has a problem so I think he is absolutely right in refusing to change it until that is proven - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Mohammad A. Haque
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Tom Rini
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and be... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and be... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 an... Tom Rini
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jes Sorensen
- Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond Jakub Jelinek