Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:38:31 +0200 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Subject: Re: 5.3: /stand/ versus /rescue/ ? Message-ID: <200410051738.32415.freebsd@redesjm.local> In-Reply-To: <16738.45007.276964.761754@canoe.dclg.ca> References: <20041003124353.29822.qmail@web54005.mail.yahoo.com> <41605C2C.8050004@freebsd.org> <16738.45007.276964.761754@canoe.dclg.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 16:29, David Gilbert wrote: > >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> writes: > > Tim> /stand is largely defunct. It is, I believe, still used to > Tim> bootstrap the CD-ROM installation, but has no particular purpose > Tim> after that point. > > I was always confused with sysinstall being in /stand. I always > understood /stand as executables that ran from the loader. The > "standalone environment." > > Dave. Right now, /stand is installed from sysinstall, and used, at last, from /etc/rc.d/initdiskless. With /rescue and /usr/sbin/sysinstall in the tree, sysinstall may be changed to not install the bootcrunch as /stand. I think /etc/rc.d/initdiskless may use /rescue/zcat and /rescue/tar instead of /stand/gzip an /stand/cpio. -- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410051738.32415.freebsd>