From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#34902: guix cannot find a module on boot Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 23:10:15 +0200 Message-ID: <874l2gg6ko.fsf@gnu.org> References: <813466538d530a38bddf60ed348cb75b@lepiller.eu> <87o967lxsa.fsf@gnu.org> <20190318231359.217af9f4@scratchpost.org> <87wokq4ptt.fsf@gnu.org> <20190404224217.5ddd00f7@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59677) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjV2-0005mL-WF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjV1-00077A-TV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46255) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjV1-000775-QV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjV1-00056i-Lk for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:03 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-To: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20190404224217.5ddd00f7@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's message of "Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:42:17 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: 34902-done@debbugs.gnu.org, 30604@debbugs.gnu.org Hello! Danny Milosavljevic skribis: > Maybe I'm too paranoid but can we have "guix" in the file name "modules.n= ame" > somewhere? Otherwise I see it coming that upstream uses modules.name for= an > incompatible purpose and then we'd be with a guix interface that's broken > and/or break their interface. > > (So much complexity for something so silly. Honestly, I feel like E-mail= ing > the upstream author and telling him what I think. WTF :P) > > Should we warn when we use the fallback? I like the defensive programming > but I feel we shouldn't have it *silently* fall back when the database is > broken/missing. > > Otherwise LGTM! So I went ahead and pushed these patches, derived from our beautiful patch set at : c85ccf60bf linux-modules: Define and use a module name database. e1a9a7f275 linux-modules: Add 'load-linux-modules-from-directory'. 2a693b69ca linux-modules: Add "modules.devname" writer. 4f8b9d1a6f linux-modules: Add "modules.alias" writer. The actual fix for the hyphen/underscore mismatch that Julien reported is commit c85ccf60bf. The =E2=80=9Cmodules.devname=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cm= odules.alias=E2=80=9D are actually unused so far but (1) it was easier to preserve them, and (2) that=E2=80=99ll give us an incentive to finish . :-) I added an explicit comment that =E2=80=9Cmodules.name=E2=80=9D uses a Guix= -specific format. We can always rename it if the kernel folks decide to acquire that file name. Julien, could you please confirm that your initial issue is fixed? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.