Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:50:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.root.dist src/include paths.h src/rescue Makefile README src/rescue/librescue Makefile src/rescue/rescue Makefile Message-ID: <20030715114903.T20428@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20030715184729.GB76909@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20030707180618.GB75063@dragon.nuxi.com> <XFMail.20030707142119.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030715184729.GB76909@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:21:19PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > I don't commit every hack we use, but I don't > > see a legitimate reason for blowing away /stand during installs. > > Go ahead and be pig-headed if you want though. If the consensus > > is that /stand should go then I guess that will be Yet Another Local > > Patch. > > If "/resuce" had been installed in "/stand" as would be the FreeBSD way > since 2.0; we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet another reason why > we should have gone with that location. Is there any reason why we can't just change the /rescue stuff to install in /stand after testing shows it works as a replacement for /stand? This would have to be done before 5.2 obviously. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030715114903.T20428>