dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> imo, the best and more widly solution would be the 2. That shouldn't
>> be too hard and would allow us to reduce the memory footprint not only
>> on your user case but in general usage too.
>
> Might be vearing off topic for this bug, but here's a wrapper I worked
> up (not yet tested in the d-i environment).
It looks nice.
I think that code might be more clear if you change the cleanup step
to be a funtion and it will make simpler to spot what is being done in
each case.
I see no point in using aggresive policy. It would unload the modules
detected by udev and since we provide a small set of modules it looks
useless to me. Do you see any possible usage?
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
