Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 19:02:27
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:36:22PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > *Sigh* I've already gone through at least three times why I consider
> > /rescue to be a bad thing. Do I really need to do this again?
> I'm not really concerned whether or not you like "/rescue". I want to
> know *precisely* how falling back on statically linked tools in /rescue
> is different in any real way than falling back oin statically linked
> tools in /bin and /sbin.
The difference is that:
1) I usually don't use /rescue, and thus don't know if they are working
when that time really do come.
2) I have to remember that I have a /rescue/init, and specify that during
boot, and see to it that I'm using stuff in /rescue and nowhere also, or
face the consequences.
*It is* the same thing I've been repeating a few times now. *Sigh*
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