Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Greywolf <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/28/2002 15:21:33
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Greywolf wrote:

> I'm not inclined to complain about a single element, or even a handful, or
> even a lot if their importance is not great, but /rescue or /recover or
> whatever we're calling this certainly does seem to imply that "well, we're
> ripping this out, even though we're aware of its importance, and we're
> epoxying it and nailing it in place over here."  Or, to phrase it less

I would say it's more that we have seen that /{s,}bin were doing two
things at once. 1), being an easy recovery method, and 2) being a set of
common tools, used every day, in familiar places (lots of things expect
/bin/sh to be sh, and /bin/ls to be, well, ls). We are now wanting to
decouple the two uses. We want our familiar-place-tools to now do more,
but we still want our easy-recovery-method around. Thus /rescue or
whatever we decide.

Take care,