Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-29 Thread Bob Willcox
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: Content-Description: signed data On Friday 28 November 2003 21:03, Tim Kientzle wrote: David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: and [/usr/bin/ftp] doesn't support HTTP. $

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-28 Thread Tim Kientzle
David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: and [/usr/bin/ftp] doesn't support HTTP. $ /usr/bin/ftp http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32524.html Requesting http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32524.html 100%

OT [was: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked]

2003-11-28 Thread Harald Schmalzbauer
On Friday 28 November 2003 21:03, Tim Kientzle wrote: David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: and [/usr/bin/ftp] doesn't support HTTP. $ /usr/bin/ftp http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32524.html Requesting

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-28 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Kientzle writes: David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: and [/usr/bin/ftp] doesn't support HTTP. $ /usr/bin/ftp http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32524.html Requesting

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-28 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Kientzle writes: David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: and [/usr/bin/ftp] doesn't support HTTP. $ /usr/bin/ftp

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-26 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-26 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 02:17:02PM -0500 I heard the voice of slave-mike, and lo! it spake thus: Would it be possible to get a copy of this script? Please! :) Oh, it's pretty simplistic. It's actually on a box that's in the closet right now, but I think this is an older working version: ---

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-26 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:16:37AM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: 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, Please send a tested patch for this. :-) If ADDITIONAL_RESCUE will

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-26 Thread Tim Kientzle
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-26 Thread Tim Kientzle
David O'Brien wrote: ... lets agree that the FTP client will be the last thing added to /rescue that is outside the original charter. I sincerely hope it will be. Mostly because I have a large chunk of new code to contribute that's broken and sitting in pieces all over my hard disk at the

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0800 I heard the voice of David O'Brien, and lo! it spake thus: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:07:49PM -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: Would it be possible, through some make.conf magic, for the end-user to set extra programs to be put into /rescue that are

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-25 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 10:09 AM -0600 11/25/03, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, I heard the voice of David O'Brien, and lo! it spake thus: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Michael Edenfield wrote: Would it be possible, through some make.conf magic, for the end-user to set extra programs to be put

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-25 Thread slave-mike
Would it be possible to get a copy of this script? Please! :) Matthew D. Fuller wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0800 I heard the voice of David O'Brien, and lo! it spake thus: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:07:49PM -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: Would it be possible, through some

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-25 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 03:48:57PM -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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Bruce M Simpson wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 02:42:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:22 PM -0800 2003/11/22, David O'Brien wrote: Please, NO. There wasn't an FTP client available for this type of recovery pre-/rescue, there shouldn't be one now. Why? Why

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
If you want access to fetch early on in this way, you could make a local branch and maintain the change for your own site, or you could boot from a FreeBSD live CD, or use sysinstall from the installation CD to install a package. I don't see fetch as a requirement for diskless clients.

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think David has valid concerns here about feeping creaturism. fetch has a whole load of library dependencies which go with it, making it unsuitable for inclusion in /rescue in the base system. Not if you build it without SSL support. DES --

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Rahul Siddharthan
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:40:06 -0800, David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: We have made the assumption for the first three options since day one. Why should we change the assumptions just because we now have a dynamic /? Because we are not all masochists. -GAWollman

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
[ 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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:46:54AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:40:06 -0800, David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: We have made the assumption for the first three options since day one. Why should we change the assumptions just because we now have a dynamic /?

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 3:40 AM -0800 11/24/03, David O'Brien 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 /. Not to continue to add to /rescue until the

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Tim Kientzle
Garance A Drosihn wrote: Another issue with adding more-and-more to /rescue ... I am certainly not suggesting adding more-and-more to /rescue. The dynamic root is a new feature with as-yet-unknown failure modes. As we understand those failure modes, we can fine-tune the contents of /rescue. I'm

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Jonathan T. Sage
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,

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Michael Edenfield
* Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031124 14:11]: I doubt there is any perfect answer which will satisfy everyone, but perhaps we can recognize that and figure out some flexible middle ground. Would it be possible, through some make.conf magic, for the end-user to set extra programs to be

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:07:49PM -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: I doubt there is any perfect answer which will satisfy everyone, but perhaps we can recognize that and figure out some flexible middle ground. Would it be possible, through some make.conf magic, for the end-user to set

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Tim Kientzle
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 /.

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Richard Coleman
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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Tim Kientzle
Richard Coleman wrote: I think a better compromise is to add the make.conf option so that extra utilities may be added to /rescue. As David already pointed out, this is not entirely trivial. Adding the programs isn't difficult, but it requires adjusting library includes, which would be tricky to

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:27:13PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: The debate right now is over what programs from /usr/bin and /usr/sbin should be included. Right now, that includes tar, gzip, bzip2, and vi/ex. All but vi(ex) were built statically, but installed into /usr/bin. -- -- David

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: 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,

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
[ 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

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-24 Thread Jason Fesler
need it or not. :-) So, FTP server is not concern. /rescue/fetch MAY help to recover RUINED FreeBSD from ashes... As /rescue/mount_cd9660, or mount_msdosfs... In other words we can drom mount_msdosfs from /rescue just because almost everybody can burn CD... We will save a few KBytes of FWIW,

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-23 Thread Enache Adrian
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 a.d., M. Warner Losh wrote: Grepping seems unsatisfying to find out which keys are used. Do you have a list? Believe it or not, vi only needs 'cm' :-) Regards, Adi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-23 Thread Tim Kientzle
M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:31:10PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: : * /rescue/vi is currently unusable if /usr is missing because : the termcap database is in /usr. One possibility :

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-23 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 02:42:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:22 PM -0800 2003/11/22, David O'Brien wrote: Please, NO. There wasn't an FTP client available for this type of recovery pre-/rescue, there shouldn't be one now. Why? Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Even

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-23 Thread Tim Kientzle
At 5:22 PM -0800 2003/11/22, David O'Brien wrote: Please, NO. There wasn't an FTP client available for this type of recovery pre-/rescue, there shouldn't be one now. This type of recovery (repairing a system with a trashed /bin) wasn't possible at all pre-/rescue. Had it been possible, /rescue

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-23 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 02:42:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:22 PM -0800 2003/11/22, David O'Brien wrote: Please, NO. There wasn't an FTP client available for this type of recovery pre-/rescue, there shouldn't be one now. Why? Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Even

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:31:10PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: : * /rescue/vi is currently unusable if /usr is missing because : the termcap database is in /usr. One possibility : would be to build a

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:33:51PM -0600, Guy Helmer wrote: Tim Kientzle wrote: Guy Helmer wrote: Thanks to /rescue and the live filesystem archives on current.freebsd.org, I was able to recover a machine that I hosed after the statfs change by trying to installworld without

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:11:30PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: Thanks to /rescue and the live filesystem archives on current.freebsd.org, I was able to recover ... I could have used the ftp client (or fetch) in /rescue :-) Yes, fetch would be useful. I imagine a lot of people in

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Brad Knowles
At 5:22 PM -0800 2003/11/22, David O'Brien wrote: Please, NO. There wasn't an FTP client available for this type of recovery pre-/rescue, there shouldn't be one now. Why? Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Even though this capability may not have existed before, why shouldn't we

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:31:10PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: : : *

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : Timing Solutions uses the following minimal termcap for its embedded : applications. It has a number of terminals that

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Mine is better because it has a more representative slice of currently : used terminal types. Maybe we should replace termcap.small with mine : (maybe with the copyright notice). : : I agree. termcap.small is

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Richard Coleman
M. Warner Losh wrote: : I agree. termcap.small is amazingly uncurrent. However, perhaps some : merging and reducing is in order. Why is a full cons25 or vt2xx needed? : vi only needs a few capabilities. I think we mostly use copies of large : termcap entries because copying the whole things

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread boyd, rounin
how about no copy of vi, or termcap and one copy of ed? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Richard Coleman
boyd, rounin wrote: how about no copy of vi, or termcap and one copy of ed? Is this where we start swapping stories about when I was a young sysadmin, we didn't need no stinkin vi. We used ed and liked it!. :-) Actually, as a sysadmin who's grown old, fat, and lazy, I would prefer to not

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Mark Linimon
Is this where we start swapping stories about when I was a young sysadmin, we didn't need no stinkin vi. We used ed and liked it!. :-) No, this is where we, out of respect for the mbox size of our fellow readers of -current, take this thread to -chat. Please. mcl

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this where we start swapping stories about when I was a young sysadmin, we didn't need no stinkin vi. We used ed and liked it!. :-) the point is that when you really want your valuable data back (without resorting to backups) a small, simple toolkit

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : : : I agree. termcap.small is amazingly uncurrent. However, perhaps some : : merging and reducing is in order. Why is a full cons25 or vt2xx needed? : : vi only needs a few

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Peter Wemm
Mark Linimon wrote: Is this where we start swapping stories about when I was a young sysadmin, we didn't need no stinkin vi. We used ed and liked it!. :-) No, this is where we, out of respect for the mbox size of our fellow readers of -current, take this thread to -chat. Please. You

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-22 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : : : I agree. termcap.small is amazingly uncurrent. However, perhaps some : : merging and reducing is in order. Why is a full cons25

RE: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Guy Helmer
Tim Kientzle wrote on Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:31 PM Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 6:26 PM +0100 11/17/03, Julian Stacey wrote: Seconded ! Better commit an improved switch with default = Off. The time for voting was months ago. ... I'm pretty comfortable with the failsafes

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Guy Helmer wrote: Thanks to /rescue and the live filesystem archives on current.freebsd.org, I was able to recover a machine that I hosed after the statfs change by trying to installworld without building booting a new kernel first. Great! Any changes you could suggest to /rescue based on that

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:31:10PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: * /rescue/vi is currently unusable if /usr is missing because the termcap database is in /usr. One possibility would be to build a couple of default termcap entries into ncurses or into vi. My suggested candidates are

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
--On Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:40 PM -0500 Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ust put a tiny termcap file in /rescue (i.e. termcap.rescue) that contains 5 or 6 of the most common terminal types (cons25, vt102, etc), and have /rescue/vi default to cons25. If you are hosed enough to

RE: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Guy Helmer
Tim Kientzle wrote: Guy Helmer wrote: Thanks to /rescue and the live filesystem archives on current.freebsd.org, I was able to recover a machine that I hosed after the statfs change by trying to installworld without building booting a new kernel first. Great! Any changes you could

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Thanks to /rescue and the live filesystem archives on current.freebsd.org, I was able to recover ... I could have used the ftp client (or fetch) in /rescue :-) Yes, fetch would be useful. I imagine a lot of people in emergency situations will need to pull things over a network connection.

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-20 Thread Tim Kientzle
Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 6:26 PM +0100 11/17/03, Julian Stacey wrote: Seconded ! Better commit an improved switch with default = Off. The time for voting was months ago. Actually, the discussion started almost a year ago now. That's when the new PAM/NSS libraries were first being announced,

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-20 Thread Bill Vermillion
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 16:31 , while impersonating an expert on the internet, Tim Kientzle sent this to stdout: Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 6:26 PM +0100 11/17/03, Julian Stacey wrote: Seconded ! Better commit an improved switch with default = Off. The time for voting was months ago.

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Tim Kientzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many of us here have been hamstrung by systems that didn't provide a static fallback. I've personally been bitten by unrecoverable Linux and Solaris systems due to hosed shared libraries. bingo. a small set of tools will usually save you. vi(1) is out

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-20 Thread Julian Stacey
Hi Garance cc current, Thanks for your well explained posting. I won't distract from new thread Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything except to note: It is not fair to pretend that this was some kind of back-room, closed-door decision. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-20 Thread Richard Coleman
Tim Kientzle wrote: I'm pretty comfortable with the failsafes that we have in place: * /sbin/init is static * If /bin/sh fails, /rescue/sh can be run * /rescue provides a complete set of statically-linked sysadmin utilities that should be sufficient for recovering a damaged system. There

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:51:30PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:51:49AM -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote: This isn't *totally* the case. :) My problem is that in upgrading from 5.1-RELEASE to -CURRENT today, installworld fails at installing test with (hand

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Tony Finch
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:24:00PM -0700, Brent Jones wrote: This is just a case of OS evolution. /sbin used to be the place where the statically linked recovery things would be placed, in case the shared libraries got hosed. The only things that

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Michael Edenfield
* Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031116 23:21]: On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:24:00PM -0700, Brent Jones wrote: This is just a case of OS evolution. /sbin used to be the place where the statically linked recovery things would be placed, in case the shared libraries got hosed. The only

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:00:20AM -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: * Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031116 23:21]: On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:24:00PM -0700, Brent Jones wrote: This is just a case of OS evolution. /sbin used to be the place where the statically linked recovery things

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Julian Stacey
Bill Vermillion wrote: I would think that instead of NO_DYNAMICROOT root in make.conf, a varialbe of DYNAMICROOT be used with the default of building static, and having the option of building dynamic for those who need to save those few MB of space. IOW don't change one of the things that

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Robert Watson
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Julian Stacey wrote: Richard Coleman wrote: But I think the time for these discussions is passed. current@ is only a concensus of /usr/src developers. /usr/src /usr/ports/ users on hackers@ ports@ isp@ may not have seen current@'s change ? that may make later net

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Terry Lambert
Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin being

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread walt
Terry Lambert wrote: Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:26:00PM +0100, Julian Stacey wrote: Bill Vermillion wrote: I would think that instead of NO_DYNAMICROOT root in make.conf, a varialbe of DYNAMICROOT be used with the default of building static, and having the option of building dynamic for those who need to

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Peter Wemm
walt wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same behavior? I

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Ken Smith
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:59:47PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: It is 'system' binaries. The distinction between bin and sbin (and /usr/ bin and /usr/sbin) is that the binaries in */sbin are only really supposed to be useful for administrators or other priviliged users. Yup, this distinction was

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 6:26 PM +0100 11/17/03, Julian Stacey wrote: Seconded ! Better commit an improved switch with default = Off. The time for voting was months ago. In fact, we have been running with what-you-call an improved switch for the past few months, to give people a chance to work out all the issues

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Anthony Schneider
well, it did compile, install and (mostly) boot with NO_DYNAMICROOT. However,i'm back to another problem (see my next email). Thanks for the responses. -Anthony. On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:06:11PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:51:30PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Peter Wemm
Ken Smith wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:59:47PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: It is 'system' binaries. The distinction between bin and sbin (and /usr/ bin and /usr/sbin) is that the binaries in */sbin are only really supposed to be useful for administrators or other priviliged users.

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-17 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: For those who don't build the OS but install from binaries, this makes the system potentially less rugged. One of the things I disliked about the Linux systems I've been on is libraries that change and break things - for things

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Robert M . Zigweid
On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:10 AM, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. If you don't like the idea of using a dynamically linked /bin and /sbin, now is the time to define NO_DYNAMICROOT in your make.conf. The reasons for doing so

Re[2]: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Max Laier
I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin being dynamically linked, but what if

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Richard Coleman
Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin being dynamically

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Robert Watson
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote: Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Darren Pilgrim
On 2003.11.16 09:46:47 -0500, Robert M.Zigweid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:10 AM, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. If you don't like the idea of using a dynamically linked /bin and /sbin,

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:50:24PM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote: On 2003.11.16 09:46:47 -0500, Robert M.Zigweid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:10 AM, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. If you

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread masta
Hi Darren Pilgrim wrote: What was done to programs like /bin/sh, /sbin/init and /sbin/fsck to make them work without access to /usr/lib? All the libs required for /bin or /sbin have moved to /lib. Like this: cd /bin file sh sh: ELF 64-bit MSB executable, SPARC V9, version 1 (FreeBSD), for

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Brent Jones
On Nov 16, 2003, at 9:22 AM, Richard Coleman wrote: Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to have the same

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Kimura Fuyuki
At Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:10:28 -0800, Gordon Tetlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. If you don't like the idea of using a dynamically linked /bin and /sbin, now is the time to define NO_DYNAMICROOT in your

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:24:00PM -0700, Brent Jones wrote: On Nov 16, 2003, at 9:22 AM, Richard Coleman wrote: Robert M.Zigweid wrote: I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? Second question. This

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Bill Vermillion
-- Message: 10 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:50:24 -0800 From: Darren Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked On 2003.11.16 09:46:47 -0500, Robert M.Zigweid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:10

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: 1) Much smaller /bin and /sbin. On i386, /bin and /sbin are 33 MB static. Dynamically linked, they are only 4 MB. I don't think saving that little space on the / partition is as important as having everthing in

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Bruce A. Mah
If memory serves me right, Bill Vermillion wrote: I don't think saving that little space on the / partition is as important as having everthing in sbin being able to stand alone no matter what is corrupted. man 8 rescue Bruce. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Richard Coleman
Bill Vermillion wrote: 1) Much smaller /bin and /sbin. On i386, /bin and /sbin are 33 MB static. Dynamically linked, they are only 4 MB. I don't think saving that little space on the / partition is as important as having everthing in sbin being able to stand alone no matter what is

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: One thing I always liked of the FBSD approach as opposed to others is to make ever tool that might possible be needed in a system recovery static so if it was there it would work. How about you take a look at what is actually

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Anthony Schneider
This isn't *totally* the case. :) My problem is that in upgrading from 5.1-RELEASE to -CURRENT today, installworld fails at installing test with (hand copied): ---8---8--- === bin/test install -s -o root -g wheel -m 555 test /bin install -o root -g wheel -m 444 test.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1 ELF

Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-16 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:51:49AM -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote: This isn't *totally* the case. :) My problem is that in upgrading from 5.1-RELEASE to -CURRENT today, installworld fails at installing test with (hand copied): Except we weren't talking about buildworld - sorry to hear you're

HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

2003-11-15 Thread Gordon Tetlow
I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. If you don't like the idea of using a dynamically linked /bin and /sbin, now is the time to define NO_DYNAMICROOT in your make.conf. The reasons for doing so have been hashed over lots of times. But the short