Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:59:33 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue Message-ID: <20030724185933.GC85582@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030723002531.GA44452@kokeb.ambesa.net> References: <20030719171138.GA86442@dragon.nuxi.com> <XFMail.20030721151553.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030721202314.GC21068@dragon.nuxi.com> <xzpn0f76i69.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20030722151138.GB72888@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030722153056.GM863@starjuice.net> <20030723002531.GA44452@kokeb.ambesa.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:25:32PM -0400, Mike Makonnen wrote: > > b) want to maintain network security while accessing that resource. > > What security? There are no network services running in single-user, > so what is there to secure? I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing things this way. > I won't complain if it's kept, but I would prefer just the bare minimum > be kept in /rescue. Once you go beyond that and into "well s/he might > need..." territory then we might as well throw in everything in the > base system. IMO, /rescue should be the absolute essentials _only_. > Instead of theorizing reasons why someone might need ipfw and friends, > why don't we wait until we get a bug report about a specific situation > in which it was needed before we put it back in. Thank you for expressing this so well. I do think we should wait for PR's telling real experiences rather than theorizing so much in the "what if"'s. > Also, while you're at it, David, I think you can get rid of rcorder > as well. I don't know why one would need it to fix a hosed root, > and besides it's staticaly linked to begin with. Will do! :-) -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030724185933.GC85582>