From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 8 11:42:03 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 F329437B401 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5100243F75 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h48Iflm2056930; Thu, 8 May 2003 11:41:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h48IflnV056929; Thu, 8 May 2003 11:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:41:47 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Warner Losh Message-ID: <20030508184147.GA56336@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Warner Losh References: <20030508165630.GA55207@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030508.094206.68986125.imp@bsdimp.com> <200305081717.h48HHPTl020707@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305081717.h48HHPTl020707@harmony.village.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fw: /rescue X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: arch@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:42:03 -0000 On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:17:25AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > : It was also felt this patch puts way too much into /stand -- like vi > : (rather than edit) and dhclient for instance. /stand should be just > : enough to recover a system by a *skilled* person. > > I disagree. I think it keeps a good amount of stuff in there. Sure, > I can do an echo * rather than an ls, but the binary is so small and You're going to an extreme -- I didn't mention ls, I mentioned nvi (about 1MB static). > disk space so cheap it makes no sense to have to force it so that only Don't forget we aren't talking about the size of the *entire* disk, the size of / is the issue (especially for source upgrades from 4.x) . Maybe I should change sysinstall to use a 2GB / and have it include /usr -- that certainly makes things easier for a dynamic /.