On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:43:15AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > 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.
Yes, this does improve readability. > 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? No - it was just something I was playing with (see my comment in the code warning people not to use it). Also, I only think it makes sense to include a policy setting if its an option - e.g. an environment variable. If we find only only one policy useful, the others should be dropped to reduce code size/complexity. Attached is a new version that incorporates your factoring suggestion, and does away with the policy options. -- dann frazier
modprobe-and-clean.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
