Bugzilla Bug 129960

after "emerge unionfs-1.1.x" the unionfs.ko goes into:
/lib/modules/KERN_VER/fs/unionfs.ko

shouldn't its destination directory preferable be:
/lib/modules/KERN_VER/kernel/fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko ?

A "manuall" installation (e.g. 1.1.4, without ebuilds running "patch-kernel.sh"
and "genkernel oder make modules" right after) causes unionfs.ko to be placed
in: /lib/modules/KERN_VER/kernel/fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko
In my opinion the paths should be as "standardised/similar" as possible. This
avoids perhabs strange effects, caused by having accidently two nearly the same
unionfs.ko's lying around when using ebuild- and
from-source-installation-methode. ;-)

Similar question regarding the unionfs-utils' installation dierctory:
unionfs-utils' (e.g. unionctl) are installed into "/usr/sbin". Would'nt it be
better to install them directly under /sbin. For example I'm using a unionfs'd
initramfs that layers rootfs: so, right after mounting the "/" the directory
(partition) /usr/sbin is not available --> managing unions without a mounted
/usr-partition will fail...

Thanks a lot!

Created an attachment (id=86452) [edit]
Unionfs kernel module installation ebuild patch

Could be easily solved by MODULE_NAMES ebuild patch. See attachment

Goods points.
@alex: you should read ' MODULE_NAMES="unionfs(kernel/fs/${PN}:)" '. (thanks)
Binaries in ${ROOT}/sbin also (1.1.4-r2, just resync the tree)

Chrisitan: Just looked into my /lib/modules/$KV_VER and found there
video/nvidia.ko and net/wireless with iee80211.... May be "adding some
intellect" to linux-mod.eclass as of to where put the 3rd party modules is not
that bad an idea - I'm not sure if putting drivers outside of
kernel/drivers/... subtree breaks autoload functionality, but even if not
placing drivers where they belongs looks much more cleaner, what do you think?