Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:59:28 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Editor in minimal system (was Re: The question of moving vi to /bin) Message-ID: <200906260959.28165.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <4ad871310906252114s29fe9d6dredf47a226a82afaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> <20090626061157.4e846d36.freebsd@edvax.de> <4ad871310906252114s29fe9d6dredf47a226a82afaa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This whole thread only really got started because I questioned Manish Jain's assertion that there was no editor available in /bin. To summarise: There are several editors available ranging from ed (49604 bytes) and ee (60920 bytes) (both with two library dependencies) to emacs (in ports; 5992604 bytes and 50 library dependencies in my installation) and probably beyond. One of them, ed, is available in /bin and therefore in single-user mode. Two of them, ed and vi, are available in /rescue and therefore in single-user mode even when something horrible happens and libraries are broken (although /rescue/vi is currently slightly broken itself due to the termcap issue which is being fixed in -CURRENT and I hope will be MFC'd). Anyone who wants /usr/bin/vi available in single-user mode can install FreeBSD with one large partition; or mount /usr once in single-user mode. The original poster suggested that the fix for not having vi in /bin was not to have any editor at all in /rescue, which comprehensively misses the point of /rescue. The only argument that's been advanced for moving vi seems to be ``vi should be in /bin because that's how I want it''. I find that argument unconvincing, but it's not up to me. I'm open to a sensible argument, if anyone has one. Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200906260959.28165.j.mckeown>