HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

[David O'Brien]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:08:58PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Contrary to what David claims, I don't think /rescue does need
> to support all of the recovery actions that a static /s?bin
> would support.  Rather, I think it only needs to support those
> recovery actions necessary to repair /bin and /sbin if they break.

No, you're missing my stance.  My stance is that no failure mode needs to
be repairable that wasn't repairable with a static /.  With a static /
last month, if I needed to get a file onto the machine, I had to use a
floppy, CDROM, or mount another file system (NFS counts in this).

The argument flowing in this thread is about adding additional ways to
repair a trashed machine.  Those of us that agreed to the /rescue bloat
didn't agree to that.  We agreed to the claim that /rescue would hold
those bits needed to repair a trashed system in the SAME ways one did
with a static /.

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)