From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 00:29:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CA237B401 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from praetor.linc-it.com (hardtime.linuxman.net [66.147.26.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648F743F3F for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:29:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-156-172-64.jan.bellsouth.net [66.156.172.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by praetor.linc-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB14B15225; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:29:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 6405F20F21; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:29:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:29:10 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Peter Wemm Message-ID: <20030606072909.GA26354@over-yonder.net> References: <20030605221114.GB51432@over-yonder.net> <20030606063105.D3B442A8C1@canning.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030606063105.D3B442A8C1@canning.wemm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:29:15 -0000 On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:31:05PM -0700 I heard the voice of Peter Wemm, and lo! it spake thus: > > Which is why /rescue/init is on the fallback init path, and can be explicitly > entered at the loader prompt. Right now it is: > kern.init_path: /sbin/init:/sbin/oinit:/sbin/init.bak:/stand/sysinstall > > And nothing would be stopping somebody from typing this at the loader: > set kern.init_path=/rescue/init > and at the shell path prompt, /rescue/sh Oh, absolutely. Given a good /rescue, you can still recover from at least most[0] problems that a static / would let you recover from. And all else being equal, I'm fully of the belief that the increase in potential minor calamities (which some manual /rescue/* intervention can recover) is a small price to pay for some of the gains that a dynamic / gives. I think the downside is minor and full work-around-able (there's a better word for that, I'm just losing my language processing skills); I just don't agree that it's nonexistent. Yes, get the support for a Big Static/Dynamic Switch (tm) in and tested so we can flip it however we want. More generally, yes, I'd agree with get a roadmap for changing the default "sometime", whether that's 5.2 or 5.3 or 6.0. It's a good change; it's just not an entirely side-effect--free change. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"