Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:10:43 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: "Adam C. Migus" <adam@migus.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue Message-ID: <20030901091043.GA87897@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <51381.192.168.4.2.1062397532.squirrel@mail.migus.org> References: <20030722153056.GM863@starjuice.net> <200307231042.29371.alex.neyman@auriga.ru> <51381.192.168.4.2.1062397532.squirrel@mail.migus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:25:32AM -0400, Adam C. Migus wrote: >The whole change to dynamic linking for / is a move to "modernize" >FreeBSD. Thus /rescue is a "modern" attempt at creating a /stand. >If we're going to be "modern" we ought to think about what "modern" >sysadmins need to "rescue" their systems. What do you mean by a "modern" sysadmin? Do you mean people who believe everything should be done via a GUI and would be lost if presented with a shell prompt? >/rescue to me implies "what's needed to rescue you're hosed FreeBSD >system." Actually /rescue is only needed when you've managed to hose your /lib, /bin or /sbin directories. If you haven't damaged your root filesystem, you can use all the utilities in /bin and /sbin. If your root is totally hosed, you need to boot from alternate media (eg a fixit CD-ROM). Excluding hamfisted sysadmins pointing "rm" at the wrong directory, /rescue is probably going to be of most use to developers who have managed to a "make world" at an inopportune time and installed a non-functional ld.so or similar. >Finally, this argument essentially comes down to space savings vs. >ability to rescue the system. Is 100K of disk space worth 2 hours >of time due to a missing tool? Any missing tool is probably available on the fixit CD-ROM. >Why not make the set of tools in /rescue easily configurable and >divide them into three sets: > >1. Those that are in the crunch and linked in /rescue, >2. Those that are in the crunch but aren't linked in /rescue, and >3. Those that aren't yet in the crunch. > >The first being tools everyone agrees are valuable, the second being >tools that at least one person thinks might be useful (not in excess >of what's there now), the last being tools everyone can agree are >useless (and thus aren't there now). There doesn't seem to be any reason for the second category. The prime driver for /rescue is size. Once you've included a utility within the crunch, you've taken the size hit so you might as well include the link. >That way if an administrator complains about a missing tool someone >said might be useful, the answer is "just create a link." And the administrator has a whinge about the #$@!%@* idiots who made him waste hours waiting for a response to his e-mail when they could have created the link to start with. This doesn't strike me as being of benefit to anyone. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030901091043.GA87897>