Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 01:29:56
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:47:31PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > I *am* concerned that my root will be non-functional, which is
> > definitely a rather probable event, given time.
> I fail to see how replacing the static linked /bin and /sbin with the
> static linked (and crunchgen'd) /rescue (of same functionality) makes
> your root becoming non-functional more likely.
> Looks the same chance to me, please explain what exactly you are afraid of.
Oh, I don't argue that a (hopefully) working /rescue will do the
trick. I'm just very opposed to having /rescue, since it will do exactly
what /bin was for, as opposed to /usr/bin.
If this is the way people want to go, then I seriously question why on
earth /usr/bin even should remain? Make it a symlink to /bin, and put
everything there, if you think it's such a brilliant idea.
Me, I still want /bin and /sbin to have self-contained binaries that don't
depend on anything else that might go magically wrong, or even appear to
go right while doing wrong.
I don't want to have to be extra tricky when my system breaks, it's hard
enough anyway, without adding an extra level of complexity for that moment
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol