Re: confirm_changes
Hi all,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:14:09PM +0200, David Härdeman wrote:
> Looking at the above mentioned comparison, there are three differences:
>
> 1) The templates used
> This can be taken care of with a parameter as you mentioned
1.5) The priorities at which some templates are asked (high vs.
critical). One example is $package/confirm_nochanges - it is high
in partman-base and -md but critical in -crypto and -lvm. I'm not
sure this difference is intentional/meaningful though?
> 2) Additional comments in partman-base
> Not relevant
>
> 3) Additional detection of previously formatted partitions
> Looking at this difference, it seems like a feature that should
> be made available in a general version of the function.
>
> I've attached a patch which merges the four implementations into one
> while taking the above comments into consideration. The result is a net
> reduction of a bit less than 300 lines of code.
Very nice improvement, IMHO. I looked into doing this
consolidation some time back and came to the same conclusion with
regard to the differences, so you may consider this a +1 on your
findings and the patch :-)
cheers,
Max
Reply to: