From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May  8  6:48:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4F137B639
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 May 2000 06:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
	by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 12ontN-000Fx9-00; Mon, 08 May 2000 15:48:13 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/18312: FreeBSD System Recovery -- mt not statically linked 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 11:16:29 MST."
             <200005051816.LAA80655@apollo.backplane.com> 
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:48:13 +0200
Message-ID: <61326.957793693@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Fri, 05 May 2000 11:16:29 MST, Matthew Dillon wrote:

>     There's not much point statically linking mt if it's sitting in
>     /usr/bin.  On the face of it it does seem a good candidate to move
>     to /bin.

Given that having things move around in the base system carries with it
varying degrees of pain, can you guys just explain why this is actually
necessary?  Didn't someone point out a way to use restore in the absence
of mt?

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message