OG>> I am sure this is right, but the setup (I presume this is how the RH
OG>> distribution looks like) looks a bit strange. It is certainly a
OG>> possibility that the kernel has no modules. Then either rmmod itself
"kernel has no modules" and "kernel has no module support" is different.
OG>> should go an look if there are any, and become a noop if there are
OG>> none. Or, if the rmmod designer decided that the functionality of
OG>> lsmod or whatever beast checks for modules should be external to
OG>> rmmod, then the docs should say so (maybe they do), and whoever write
OG>> the cron stanza (RH?) should have made it safe. Should this be brought
OG>> to the attention of RH?
I do not get your point. If someone decides to (re-)compile kernel without
functionality, needed for some programs, then what you expect this program
to do? It fails with informative error message, what else do you want? If
you compile kernel without support for some filesystem, do you expect
mount to be "safe" on it? It would just say "I can't", and it's perfectly
valid.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-3-9316425 /\ JRRT LotR.
http://sharat.co.il/frodo/ whois:!SM8333
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
