From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 02:11:04 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 925FF16A4BF for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-28-27-130.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.28.27.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC3343FFB for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 02:11:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])h819Argh087988; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:10:54 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h819AiGD087987; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:10:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:10:43 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: "Adam C. Migus" Message-ID: <20030901091043.GA87897@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20030722153056.GM863@starjuice.net> <200307231042.29371.alex.neyman@auriga.ru> <51381.192.168.4.2.1062397532.squirrel@mail.migus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51381.192.168.4.2.1062397532.squirrel@mail.migus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue 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: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 09:11:04 -0000 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