Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked
From: Garance A Drosihn (drosih_at_rpi.edu)
Date: 11/24/03
- Previous message: Ade Lovett: "5.2-BETA USB woes"
- In reply to: David O'Brien: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Next in thread: Tim Kientzle: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Reply: Tim Kientzle: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Reply: Michael Edenfield: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:02:39 -0500 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
At 3:40 AM -0800 11/24/03, David O'Brien wrote:
>
>NO. /rescue was allowed in the system to handle the case
>of a trashed file in /lib[exec]. To allow a sysadmin to
>recover a system from the same type of mishaps they could
>before we went to a dynamic /. Not to continue to add
>to /rescue until the sysadmin could recover from every
>conceivable way of trashing a system.
>
>/rescue was not to become the all-in-compassing Swiss Army
>recover tool. We provide the Live-FS CD (disc 2) for that.
Another issue with adding more-and-more to /rescue is that
every thing added to /rescue is compiled for it. Which is
to say, the time it takes for a buildworld keeps increasing.
I just bought one hardware upgrade to get back the time lost
from going to GCC 3.x, and I find that the buildworld times
are now increasing again due to compiling everything twice
for /rescue.
I kind of like the idea of having 'vi' available, but I will
also admit that I don't need it. All my hardware has CD-ROM
drives, and I set up all my systems with multiple (multi-boot)
installs of freebsd. If something goes wrong, I like having
vi around, but then I also like having bash and ruby (among
other things). So, I have dual-boot systems. No matter what
you put in /rescue, there are *possible* disaster scenarios
where you won't have something you need. For some reason, I
manage to hit those every few months. From my experience I
have found that it's much better to have multiple separate
installs, and that way I can usually fix one install from the
other one.
Other people will have other hardware, and thus other needs.
We should probably make sure it's easy to add some of these
programs to /rescue, but I don't think that all of us should
have to build all the programs that any one of us feel they
might need.
I doubt there is any perfect answer which will satisfy
everyone, but perhaps we can recognize that and figure out
some flexible middle ground.
-- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Ade Lovett: "5.2-BETA USB woes"
- In reply to: David O'Brien: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Next in thread: Tim Kientzle: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Reply: Tim Kientzle: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Reply: Michael Edenfield: "Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
