From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 14:41:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870B716A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABB043FAF for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:41:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAOMeVvX067710; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:40:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAOMeUuL067709; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:40:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:40:30 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <3FBE8D92.6080205@acm.org> <20031123012222.GB11523@dragon.nuxi.com> <20031123042635.GB677@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <3FC16644.7070005@acm.org> <20031124114006.GA60761@dragon.nuxi.com> <3FC2655A.8080202@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC2655A.8080202@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-BETA Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:41:07 -0000 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)