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_at_mindspring.comReceived on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 16:43:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC