[ From: set to /dev/null as too many can't follow the Reply-To: ] On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan 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 /. > > Ie, let's do things the same way we did in 1994? Other things have > changed since then, hard drives and typical root partitions are much > bigger, and Tim estimated the total bloat from this as 64k. Maybe > earlier, pre-/rescue, you couldn't recover from damaged files in the > root partition without a CD/floppy/NFS, it doesn't mean you should not > have that capability in /rescue. Lets have /rescue/{[s]bin,usr/[s]bin}. Install static copies of every thing in /[s]bin and /usr/[s]bin today. That will let you recover in even more ways. Where does it end if we don't go full-out and install a 2nd copy of every binary? > For a *lot* of people today (like home users), an up-to-date FreeBSD > CD or floppy or a second machine to create the disk on may not be > handy (and forget about NFS), but a network connection may still be > available. That network connection would most likely be a M$-Win box in that case, which doesn't have an FTP server. Samba, not an FTP client should be in /rescue then.Received on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 08:32:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC