From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 8 8:43:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109D337B92E for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from semuta.feral.com (semuta [192.67.166.70]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25140; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:42:09 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:42:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: Matthew Dillon , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/18312: FreeBSD System Recovery -- mt not statically linked In-Reply-To: <61326.957793693@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 8 May 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > 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? Yes, that was me. But maybe they're /usr that they want to restore isn't in dump(8) format. I dunno- this is why I asked. It seems to me on the face of it a reasonable thing to have- basic device manipulation available w/o /usr. But there's no particular end to the number of things you *could* want to be availble if someone takes a Mossberger to your /usr. So, I'm of two minds about this. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message