Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:59:27 +0100 (BST) From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: Alexey Neyman <alex.neyman@auriga.ru> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0307232258170.672-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200307231042.29371.alex.neyman@auriga.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Alexey Neyman wrote: > Hi, there! > > On Tuesday 22 July 2003 19:30, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > I don't see this as an unreasonable requirement, and I can't see what > > great cost it incurs that would motivate us to remove support for it. > > Can't all this be done in a "user needs it, user adds it" fashion? E.g., to > add /etc/rescue.mk that will be .include'd in src/rescue/rescue/Makefile, > adding the required binaries to the CRUNCH_PROGS_bin, CRUNCH_PROG_sbin, > CRUNCH_LIBS lists? > > E.g: > --- /etc/rescue.mk --- > CRUNCH_PROGS_sbin += chown > > This will allow the "base" list to be trimmed to some minimalist level, and > will still allow the users to add whatever they [think they] need to restore > their system. What a fantastic suggestion. This really has merit. What's that slogan? "Mechanism, not policy"? The discussion thus far shines new light on the wisdom of such a position. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ I am now available for general use under a modified BSD licence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.44.0307232258170.672-100000>