Jason R Thorpe wrote:
 > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:29:26PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
 >
 >  > [ On Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 01:29:56 (+0200), Johnny Billquist 
wrote: ]
 >  > > Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
 >  > >
 >  > > 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.
 >  >
 >  > Very good point!
 >
 > No not a very good point, and here's why...
 >
 > The fact that we have a static /bin and /sbin *now* is nothing more than
 > an historical accident.
A very useful historical accident, I'd say!
But you seem against historical accidents. Ever heard phrases like "As it 
turned out, that implementation had more advantages than we forethought"?
I think this is one such case, as I've read no good (to me!) reason why 
this should happen.
For the disk space gain on /: the commands are doubled, but the space is 
reduced. This either means there are less programs in /rescue (whatever 
that will be called!) or that they are crunchgen(1)ed together. I don't 
think either is a good idea for the very same reasons that you all read 
countless times.
For the locale support: AFAIK, programs can be statically linked to support 
locales
For the upgradability: I always used either binary upgrades or rebuilds 
from source. In either case there is no significant difference to me 
(except maybe for the download size, but I don't think that's a big issue). 
If anyone has another way or reason, I don't know.
For the rescuability (urgh :) of a system: I, right now, have on my system 
both /{s,}bin and /{s,}bin_backup, where {s,}bin_backup is a copy (n hard 
links) of the base directory. That way, should something go wrong with a 
bad sector, I will be able to recover the system (and I already did so). 
They're 15mb, ok, but I say a system's life is much more important! (and 
they can reside on another partition)
As for the network authentication, I really haven't understood well the point.

 > I wouldn't exactly say there was any purposefulness in the current scheme,
 > and certainly wouldn't make the assertion that /bin and /sbin are "for"
 > single-user system recovery.

But I make the assertion:
/bin and /sbin are useful in single-user system recovery.


Greetings,
	Paolo Torelli