[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 :-)


Reply to: