Hi, On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 06:47:53PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 18:36:07 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote: > > Sorry, this patch does not change anything. "a && b" is basically the > > same as "if a; then b; fi" which is what you're doing here. This issue > > has already been addressed in the fix for #447961. > > > Well no. "a && b" is only successful if both "a" and "b" exit > successfully. If you don't want to fail when udev is not running, that > patch is correct.
Well, the problem is that "udev restart" fails (which is "b" in this case). It doesn't really matter if "a && b" fails (that's the reason I said "basically the same" ;-) as the "-e" option has not been set and thus the return value will simply be ignored - which (imho) is perfectly fine in this case. Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
