Re: Path to kernel modules (second attempt)

[Bernd Ernesti <netbsd%lists.veego.de@localhost>]

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 01:03:03PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 08:57:10PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> >  > Regarding the PR/38724, I propose to change the path to "/kernel/".
> >  > Can we reach some consensus quickly for netbsd-6?
> > 
> > If it's going to be a new toplevel directory, it should probably be
> > /modules.
> 
> I do not mind /modules.  It is better than /lib{data,exec,}/modules.
> However..

Do we really need a new toplevel directory?

> > (I know there's an argument that if it's /kernel we could eventually
> > put other stuff in there as well besides modules; but all such uses
> > are so far entirely conjectural (not even to the stage of being
> > vaporware) so I think it's highly premature to plan for them at this
> > point.)
> 
> Is there a reason to *not* go with /kernel, besides annoyance of it
> being similar to /kern? [..]

Please not /kernel as it was already mentioned, it is too similar to
/kern. Filename completion would be not easier if you want to use a
file from /kern.

Either somewhere below /libdata or if you really want a new toplevel
directory then it could be /boot which was mentioned, so it match the
FreeBSD behaviour.

Bernd