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 attachment 86452 [details, diff] 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?
