Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:16:21 -0700 (MST) | From | Derrik Pates <> | Subject | Re: 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 dpates@cavern.nmsu.edu
"What'll you two lovable plush toys have?" "How 'bout a root beer popsicle and an Orange Julius? What about you, Max?" "Dishwater! And put it in a dirty glass!" -Sam & Max "Fair Wind to Java"
|  |