Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:48:57 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <3FC298E9.1050000@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <FPEBKMIFGFHCGLLKBLMMCEDCCDAA.ghelmer@palisadesys.com> <3FBE8D92.6080205@acm.org> <20031123012222.GB11523@dragon.nuxi.com> <p06002003bbe5c0f30237@[10.0.1.2]> <20031123042635.GB677@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <3FC16644.7070005@acm.org> <20031124114006.GA60761@dragon.nuxi.com> <p06002002bbe7fd7ac23c@[128.113.24.47]> <3FC2655A.8080202@acm.org> <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:08:58PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
>>... I think [/rescue] only needs to support those
>>recovery actions necessary to repair /bin and /sbin if they break.
>
> My stance is that no failure mode needs to
> be repairable that wasn't repairable with a static /.
I'm willing to compromise, David.
Here's what I suggest:
* I could support removing vi/ex from /rescue.
* In exchange for this concession, would you be willing
to support adding fetch?
I expect this exchange would result in a net 150-200 kB
savings in /rescue.
How about it?
Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FC298E9.1050000>