Re: ash vs. bash
According to Marcus Brinkmann:
> Any rescue disk/cd can offer you more tools than a static sulogin and sash. A
> rescue disk is also more convenient. Just plug it in, mount your root
> partition and start to fix things. This works always, not only if /lib went
> fubar, but also if you have problems with init etc.
> ulysses:/var/spool/exim/input# ldd /sbin/init
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40005000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x2aaaa000)
I did this one too (and some more). And it worked (crash-tests and real
> The decision to have everything linked with shared libraries was a good one.
I disagree.. based upon years of experience with several unix types.
> Otherwise you end up linking everything on mother earth statically, just to
> be able to repair your system under each and any failure situation.
> Do It Right (tm) - Have A Rescue Disk Ready
easy if you have a limited or homogeneous park (not my case, at all)..
you must also be well organized.. or work with a well organized team ;)
[ - where is the rescue disk for xyz ? - hmm.. last time I've seen it, it
was snowing.. - it doesn't help - sorry - ok, time to make a new one..
<searching.. digging> hmm... I need a blank floppy disk !! - use ftp !!!
- grrrrr ]
Well, it would be nice to have a rescue package too (optional or recommended).
This will let people choose between rescue disk or direct rescue.. or both.
Unfortunatly, I have nearly zero free time to do this myself :(
Fabien Tassin -+- firstname.lastname@example.org