> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:47:54PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:29
>> > -0500:
>> >> This has the result of reducing the size of the shell code, and
>> reducing
>> >
>> > Unless you cross a fs frag (usually 1024 bytes), i.e.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:47:54PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:29
> > -0500:
> >> This has the result of reducing the size of the shell code, and reducing
> >
> > Unless you cross a fs frag (usually 1024 bytes), i.e. reduce the
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>>
>>>
> [...]
>
>>>Thirded. I far prefer the bigger C-like if statements and think this
>>>patch is a huge code churn for what is basically code obfuscation.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Maxime
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well I certainly respect the op
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:29
> -0500:
>> This has the result of reducing the size of the shell code, and reducing
>
> Unless you cross a fs frag (usually 1024 bytes), i.e. reduce the scripts
> by an average of 512bytes *per* script, you will see no disk space
lets try that again without most of the typos.
Julian Elischer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
[...]
Thirded. I far prefer the bigger C-like if statements and think this
patch is a huge code churn for what is basically code obfuscation.
Cheers,
Maxime
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
[...]
Thirded. I far prefer the bigger C-like if statements and think this
patch is a huge code churn for what is basically code obfuscation.
Cheers,
Maxime
Well I certainly respect the opinions, but respectfully when has th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:29 -0500:
> This has the result of reducing the size of the shell code, and reducing
Unless you cross a fs frag (usually 1024 bytes), i.e. reduce the scripts
by an average of 512bytes *per* script, you will see no disk space savings
f
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:29:00 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well I certainly respect the opinions, but respectfully when has the use
> of && and || become obfuscation? Secondly, the use of shell style blocks
> of code is similar to the way they are done in C where curly-braces are
> used to
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On 2005-08-01 13:55, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Monday 01 August 2005 01:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> This patch effects most of the rc.d scripts that utilize simple IF
>> >> statements, converting them to logical AND/OR's instead. For exam
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2005-08-01 13:55, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Monday 01 August 2005 01:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> This patch effects most of the rc.d scripts that utilize simple IF
> >> statements, converting them to logical AND/OR's instead. For example:
>
On 2005-08-01 13:55, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 01 August 2005 01:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This patch effects most of the rc.d scripts that utilize simple IF
>> statements, converting them to logical AND/OR's instead. For example:
>>
>> if [ ! -f foo ]
>> then
>>
On Monday 01 August 2005 01:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> This is my first patch to this project.
> This is the first of many patches to come actually, but I need to find a
> sponsor to guide me, and review what I submit. The patch is kinda big, and
> far reaching in terms of alte
Hi there,
This is my first patch to this project.
This is the first of many patches to come actually, but I need to find a
sponsor to guide me, and review what I submit. The patch is kinda big, and
far reaching in terms of altering almost every rc.d script.
This patch effects most of the rc.d scr
13 matches
Mail list logo