Subject: Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
To: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
From: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2002 09:48:27
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:24:22AM -0500, Richard Rauch wrote:
> The former seems about like the dependancy on crunchgen, and elimites the
> complexity of having two sets of binaries.
While exploding the / partition size. Otherwise: fine. Maybe we should add
yet another make knob to generate uncrunched /rescue binaries for those that
like it and have the space available? (No idea if this is easily implementable
without making a big mess out of the /sbin and /bin makefiles)
> Perhaps, as well (if this isn't already part of the plan), /rescue (if
> provided) should be a distinct parttion
That you mount by which 'mount'/'mount_ffs' binary if your dynamic binaries
do not work?