Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:40:30 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC2655A.8080202@acm.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:08:58PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Contrary to what David claims, I don't think /rescue does need > to support all of the recovery actions that a static /s?bin > would support. Rather, I think it only needs to support those > recovery actions necessary to repair /bin and /sbin if they break. No, you're missing my stance. My stance is that no failure mode needs to be repairable that wasn't repairable with a static /. With a static / last month, if I needed to get a file onto the machine, I had to use a floppy, CDROM, or mount another file system (NFS counts in this). The argument flowing in this thread is about adding additional ways to repair a trashed machine. Those of us that agreed to the /rescue bloat didn't agree to that. We agreed to the claim that /rescue would hold those bits needed to repair a trashed system in the SAME ways one did with a static /. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031124224030.GB67578>