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

[Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>]

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, Américo 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.
>> >>  so 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.  if you have a distro
>> that does something stupid like break the correct default m-i-t
>> install setup, you should actually point it out.  the 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 Américo 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 Américo suggests.

i am saying they're stupid for doing this, but i'm not saying we
shouldnt support it.  the 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.
-mike