Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:43:29 -0500 From: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@mindspring.com> To: kientzle@acm.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <3FC2B3C1.4090803@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC298E9.1050000@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> <20031124224030.GB67578@dragon.nuxi.com> <3FC298E9.1050000@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Kientzle wrote: > 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 I think a better compromise is to add the make.conf option so that extra utilities may be added to /rescue. Then leave both vi and fetch out of the default. With the size of disk drives these days, (for my own setup) I'm tempted to just add a complete copy of /bin and /sbin into /rescue. The extra 100 meg doesn't take much out of a 80 gig hard drive. Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FC2B3C1.4090803>