Re: [PATCH] kconfig: dont hardcode path to lsmod

From: AmÃrico Wang
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 22:16:28 EST

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 13:12, John Kacur wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:42, John Kacur wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:25, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:52:00AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> >>>>The lsmod utility has always been installed into /bin with the newer
>>> >>>>module-init-tools package, so let lsmod be found via PATH instead of
>>> >>>>hardcoding the old modutils /sbin path.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Some distro doesn't set /sbin to PATH, so for me a better solution
>>> >>> would be making PATH contain /sbin, and then use "lsmod".
>>> >>
>>> >> read my changelog -- module-init-tools has always installed into /bin.
>>> >> Âso what your distro does with /sbin doesnt matter.
>>> >
>>> > I prefer my patches work for the real-world instead of the "so what
>>> > your distro does doesn't matter" world.
>>> try reading my comment instead of getting huffy. Âif you have a distro
>>> that does something stupid like break the correct default m-i-t
>>> install setup, you should actually point it out. Âthe ones i checked
>>> were sane and installed lsmod into /bin (and some symlinked lsmod for
>>> backwards compat with modutils into /sbin).
>> Well, I'm currently running Fedora (10 thru 12), and lsmod is in /sbin
>> Your patch would still not break for me because /sbin is in the PATH.
>> However if AmÃrico is correct that there are distros that have lsmod in
>> /sbin and don't have /sbin in the PATH, then your patch would break them.
>> You can argue that the distro is doing something stupid, but I'll bet you
>> they will blame your patch for breaking them. It seems reasonable to
>> me that a distro might only put /sbin in the superuser path, so I can
>> imagine there are cases like AmÃrico suggests.
> i am saying they're stupid for doing this, but i'm not saying we
> shouldnt support it. Âthe premise for my original patch was that
> upstream m-i-t has always used /bin (which means all 2.6 module
> handers should be there per upstream), and the downstream distros i
> had access to followed upstream's direction.
> sounds like Fedora should have a bug report to get their things fixed
> ... there's no reason for `lsmod` to not be in /bin (and everyone's
> PATH) since it only reads /proc/modules and that is word readable.

This certainly makes sense, but the fact is that lsmod is still there,
what is worse, on RHEL (Fedora too, I think) /sbin is not in PATH
of my zsh.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at