David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 06:00:36PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > Scenarios that require /rescue are ones in which /bin and /sbin > > are unusable, which is almost always going to imply a trashed file > > in /bin, /sbin, or /lib. Thus, most /rescue scenarios are going to > > involve locating a good copy of a trashed file to replace a damaged > > local copy. > > 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. 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. This applies equally if the trashed file is in /lib[exec]. I don't understand this argument of "we have never been able to do this, therefore we shouldn't do this now even if we are able to". Rahul _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"