RFC: extra kernel module install locations

[Ville Skyttä]

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 17:42, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> > 1) IMO shouldn't use "kernel" for stuff that is not included in kernel
> >    distributed by the kernel vendor.
> 
> I don't think it's a problem. I think installing the module exactly at
> the same place where it normally would have been installed when you
> compile it also has a lot of benefits.

Could you elaborate on "lot of benefits", it is not at all clear to me. 
Axel already commented why intruding this "vendor space" can cause
problems.

> > 2) My #1 pick as of now, maybe, depending on 3) below.
> 
> But do we really need to mirror the stucture? Is there any benefit in
> doing so? Why not a simple per-package dir? 

Why not be consistent with what the kernel does?  What benefits does a
per-package dir approach have?  If you are thinking about directory
ownership in module packages, everything below _and including_ the
"updates" or "extra" dirs should be owned by the module package(s)
anyway because the kernel package does not create nor own them.