Smarter way of adding alias entries to modules.conf ?

Cyril Bortolato
Fri Nov 14 01:09:00 2003

I think DKMS should not add aliases to /etc/modules.conf
automatically. How about adding a command line argument
to DKMS that would let users decide whether an alias
should be added or not?

But IMHO adding aliases should be done by e.g. the GNOME
control panel or an application that can check the
presence of the corresponding hardware (with HAL for
example, or at least let
users decide what to do, i.e. in Amit's example decide
which NIC device corresponds to which eth[0-3] entry,
using some GUI (I'm thinking to add this to gmodconfig
in the "Setup" tab of modules).

Cyril wrote:
> Gary,
> As per our previous conversation, currently (0.45.01) DKMS  has a 
> "feature" where an entry for a module is written to /etc/modules.conf 
> even if the device for that module does not exist causing some degree of 
> confusion.
> For example: If I install, say an e1000 dkms rpm on a system that does 
> not have an Intel Gig-E NIC, I get a false alias entry for a ethX device 
> for e1000 in /etc/modules.conf where X is the smallest available number. 
> So say I have eth0 and eth1 entries before I install the rpm, an entry 
> for eth3 is getting added with alias e1000 although there is no device 
> for that module.
> Now the obvious question is "why" am I installing a RPM when I do not 
> have it's equivalent device and is that an unsupported action. The 
> answer to that is that sometimes drivers have to be pre-installed in 
> un-interactive environments like Factory Install regardless of what 
> devices exist.
> I know we discussed on adding a dkms.conf variable, say DEVICE_MATCH 
> which will contain a *unique* string that DKMS will look for (via lspci 
> or in /proc or somewhere reliable) and if it finds that and *only* if it 
> finds that would it add entries to the /etc/modules.conf.
> Anybody have suggestions on better resolving this issue ?
> Thanks,
> - Amit B