Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:21:19 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.root.dist src/include paths.h src/rescue Makefile README src/rescue/librescue Makefile src/rescue/rescue Makefile Message-ID: <XFMail.20030707142119.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030707180618.GB75063@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Jul-2003 David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 03:25:26PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 01-Jul-2003 David O'Brien wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:28:05PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> No. sysinstall copies over /stand and then chroots into the new root >> >> for the actual install after it does the newfs. If you don't copy /stand >> >> then installs will fail. >> > >> > Yes, we need a /stand during the install. But not post install. >> >> Maybe for your machines, not for some machines I work with that use custom >> install scripts. :) > > Oh, for a local TWC'ism. Stock FreeBSD should not be required to support > rare localisms. David, Whether you like it or not, having FreeBSD be friendly to being deployed as the OS in "smart devices" is good for FreeBSD's future, not bad. I strongly do not wish to have to maintain a TWCBSD fork and strongly try to minimize the differences between what we use and what is stock. I don't commit every hack we use, but I don't see a legitimate reason for blowing away /stand during installs. Go ahead and be pig-headed if you want though. If the consensus is that /stand should go then I guess that will be Yet Another Local Patch. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030707142119.jhb>