Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 10:56:40
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 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?
You haven't explained it. You have said things that I gather you think are
reasons, but don't look like reasons to everyone else. The look more like
> > 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*
So you're saying the real reason you don't like /rescue is that it's
different? That you have to think about it?
That actually is a reason we try to keep in mind. However in this case, we
(a fair number of the developers) have weighed the pros and cons, and we
feel change is for the best.