* Dale Scheetz said: > > On the other hand, Debian's documentation on what to do when the > > system goes south is rather limited. > > I have apparently misunderstood the trust of the proposal then. I thought > the desire being expressed on this thread was to make it so the install > _couldn't_ break in the fashion we have seen with bash. Well, as far as I am concerned, I worry about bash and a basic set of utilities, not about install, apt, dpkg etc. In case of failure you must have an operable shell and at least a few utilities: ln, cp, mv, tar, mount, some reasonable editor. Yes, sash has most of them, that's good - but sash won't work when init breaks (yes, I can hear you saying "you can always pass the 'init=/bin/sash' parameter to the kernel - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to do when you use a standard LILO installation - it doesn't allow the user to provide kernel params, it's not interactive). So, see my suggestion in one of the earlier mails to provide a selection for the bootmanager menu to invoke it just with one line entered on the bootprompt and a static init and sash. Is my suggestion so stupid it cannot be taken upon consideration? > > [We do have a "boot with the rescue disk" comment somewhere, but > > there's no signficant cookbook of advice for dealing with common > > situations, and we have no useful recommendations for headless > > machines.] > > I remember us having this discussion just a few weeks ago under the > thread: > > Possible ITP: Rescue Package > > and we decided that sash was sufficient for most purposes, and that a > static sulogin might be useful as well as a static editor. We never > discussed making a static dpkg or apt, or any other "core" programs as > that doesn't seem to be required. I agree as long as dpkg, apt etc. are concerned. But init, sulogin and sash are a must. regards, marek
Attachment:
pgpTz8YOxiMBK.pgp
Description: PGP signature