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_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 13:41:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC