From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 12:48:29 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 F1E2D37B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool-151-200-10-97.res.east.verizon.net (pool-141-156-222-108.res.east.verizon.net [141.156.222.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC543F75; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mtm@identd.net) Received: from kokeb.ambesa.net (pca2kiv19cuwkwas@localhost [127.0.0.1]) id h6NJmQ49061441; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:48:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mtm@identd.net) Received: (from mtm@localhost) by kokeb.ambesa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6NJmQFd061440; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:48:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mtm@identd.net) X-Authentication-Warning: kokeb.ambesa.net: mtm set sender to mtm@identd.net using -f Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:48:26 -0400 From: Mike Makonnen To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20030723194825.GA60545@kokeb.ambesa.net> References: <20030723043410.GA45652@kokeb.ambesa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/5.1-CURRENT (i386) cc: Steve Kargl 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:48:29 -0000 On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:56:49PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > If you prefer to be sitting at a machine's single user prompt > one day, going "dang, if only rescue had I wouldn't be > totally screwed, and gee, it only cost 5k in disk space as well" > rather than resurrecting a dead machine during that time, then > I find that rather odd. Didn't the original rescue list come > from NetBSD in the first place where it has already gone through > one round of revisions? Or do you all just think that NetBSD's > rescue is poorly designed and bloated so you need to one-up them > for some reason? Maybe NetBSD has ipfw in their rescue because, > gee, they've gotten a bug report on it? I wouldn't be so quick > to discount the experience put into software that we nab from > other places. Actually, now that you mentioned it I took a look at their /rescue and it looks like they don't have any of the ipfilter tools in there. I don't think ipfw was port to NetBSD. So, it looks like they don't think firewalls are necessary in /rescue, either. >I also think that there should be some actual size > numbers of what we gain by trimming /rescue should be done prior > to commit. It can only help to have added functionality for some > corner case if it only adds a couple of kb in size. My only real objection to this issue was that those who wanted to keep ipfw didn't give any reason other than "it might be useful." If so, then _everything_ in /bin, /sbin/, and some in /usr/sbin and /usr/bin fall under this category. This issue is not worth all this argument, so I am simply withdrawing from this discussion. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc mtm@identd.net | D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9 mtm@FreeBSD.Org| FreeBSD - Unleash the Daemon!