Messages in this thread |  | | From | "keltor" <> | Subject | Re: modutils, the next generation | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:11:53 -0600 |
| |
.m is a programming file type used in more than once language already, but km is a good one i think
---------- > From: Derrik Pates <dpates@Cavern.NMSU.Edu> > To: Martin Buck <Martin-2.Buck@student.uni-ulm.de> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: modutils, the next generation > Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 1:16 PM > > 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"
|  |