[lkml]   [1997]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: modutils, the next generation
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Martin Buck wrote:

> Sorry, no answer to your question, but I've got another question concerning
> modules and their recognition:
> Why do modules use .o as extension? Of course, they're object files, but
> very special ones, so an extension like .mod would make much more sense,
> IMHO. If I remeber correctly, the old insmod/depmod/modprobe (never looked
> at TNG) even checked for .mod in some places, but it didn't work because
> the check for .mod was missing at some other places.

I'd say .mod is not a good extension to use - it's already used by a music
file format. But, if we want to give loadable modules their own extension,
how about .m or .k or maybe .km ?? Just food for thought.

Derrik Pates

"What'll you two lovable plush toys have?"
"How 'bout a root beer popsicle and an Orange Julius? What about you,
"Dishwater! And put it in a dirty glass!"
-Sam & Max
"Fair Wind to Java"

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:1.051 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site