Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:59:54 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <20031126025954.GC56876@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC298E9.1050000@acm.org> References: <3FBE8D92.6080205@acm.org> <20031123012222.GB11523@dragon.nuxi.com> <p06002003bbe5c0f30237@[10.0.1.2]> <20031123042635.GB677@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <3FC16644.7070005@acm.org> <20031124114006.GA60761@dragon.nuxi.com> <p06002002bbe7fd7ac23c@[128.113.24.47]> <3FC2655A.8080202@acm.org> <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com> <3FC298E9.1050000@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 03:48:57PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>... I think [/rescue] only needs to support those > >>recovery actions necessary to repair /bin and /sbin if they break. > > > >My stance is that no failure mode needs to > >be repairable that wasn't repairable with a static /. > > I'm willing to compromise, David. > > Here's what I suggest: > > * I could support removing vi/ex from /rescue. Either way -- keep it or not. But lets agree that the FTP client will be the last thing added to /rescue that is outside the original charter. > * In exchange for this concession, would you be willing > to support adding fetch? If we're going to add an FTP client, lets pick the one with the best functionality for the job -- /usr/bin/ftp. I may not know the complete URL to the bits I need, and if so with fetch you're still screwed. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031126025954.GC56876>