I just thought rmrf function would be more readable this way. no
problems to change it back for me. :)
On 3/29/07, VMiklos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Na Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:07:30PM -0300, Cláudio Henrique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pisal(a):
> I did:
> diff -Naur src/util.c _darcs/pristine/src/util.c > util.c.diff
darcs diff -u, or diff -u _darcs/pristine/src/util.c src/util.c :)
imho you currently sent a reversed patch ;)
> - umount2(target,MNT_FORCE);
> + umount(target);
ok (assiming that this is a reversed patch :) )
> - char *ptr = g_strdup_printf("rm -rf %s", path);
> - int ret = fw_system(ptr);
> - free(ptr);
why this? the original method was better imho. ideally there should be
as less system calls in the setup as possible
> - return (umount2(dev,0));
> + system(g_strdup_printf("umount %s >%s 2>%s", dev, LOGDEV,
LOGDEV));
> return(0);
> }
>
> int fw_system(char* cmd)
> {
> - char *ptr;
> #ifdef FINAL
> - ptr = g_strdup_printf("%s >%s 2>%s", cmd, LOGDEV, LOGDEV);
> + return(system(g_strdup_printf("%s >%s 2>%s", cmd, LOGDEV, LOGDEV)));
> #else
> - ptr = g_strdup_printf("echo %s >%s 2>%s", cmd, LOGDEV, LOGDEV);
> + return(system(g_strdup_printf("echo %s >%s 2>%s", cmd, LOGDEV,
> + LOGDEV)));
> #endif
> - int ret = system(ptr);
> - free(ptr);
> - return (ret);
> }
ok
thanks,
VMiklos
--
developer of Frugalware Linux - http://frugalware.org
_______________________________________________
Frugalware-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
--
In order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that
is likely to hurt. 'Posthumous Pieces' by Wei Wu Wei
_______________________________________________
Frugalware-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
