Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:41:53PM -0500 I heard the voice of > Garance A Drosihn, and lo! it spake thus: > >>It is a bit more complicated than that, because programs may >>include embedded references to other files. So, I think >>some developer would *have* to do a little up-front work for >>any program that would be optionally-added to /rescue. > > > Oh, sure; nothing's ever as easy as it should be :) > > The advantage of this method is it's simple, cheap, automatic, and lets > us say "You can try setting ADDITIONAL_RESCUE=usr.sbin/foo in make.conf > and it may work", without putting extra burden on developers or people > who don't wanna. It may only be a fifth of a loaf, but... ... but a /rescue that doesn't work is useless. The one critical property of /rescue is that it MUST WORK when /bin and /sbin are both hosed. Your technique here cannot gaurantee this. Testing /rescue is not a simple exercise. You must first break both /bin and /sbin and unmount /usr. You must then test EVERY part of /rescue, since adding or removing one program can potentially break other programs (whose hard-coded references to that program may need to be adjusted). There are (fortunately) a few shortcuts (I spent a long time poring over the output of 'strings /rescue/rescue' to check for hard-coded references), but it's still not pretty. TimReceived on Wed Nov 26 2003 - 09:07:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:31 UTC