Re: Possible ITP: Rescue Package
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Fabien Tassin wrote:
> According to Dale Scheetz:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Fabien Tassin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, it would be nice to have a rescue package too (optional or recommended).
> >
> > Probably "Extra".
>
> I've re-read section 2.2 of Debian Policy and "Extra" is probably the better
> choice (even if the quote in "important" will be heard if we forget
> something critical).
There are many extra packages that are important in one context or
another.
>
> > > This will let people choose between rescue disk or direct rescue.. or both.
> > > Unfortunatly, I have nearly zero free time to do this myself :(
> >
> > As I'm already working on a semi-related problem, maybe I can do this.
>
> Great !! :)
>
> > What you seem to be asking for, is a collection of utility programs that
> > are static linked for use in a hosed system. All of these program exist in
> > current packages, but only need to be compiled differently and collected
> > into one binary package. This is the part I am already working on.
>
> exactly.
>
> > In addition, if this is going to act like a "normal" Debian package, it
> > must install these programs somewhere besides the locations of their
> > dynamicly linked counterparts, and still be accessible within the
> > "crashed" system. A system similar to update alternatives could be used to
> > "replace" the dynamic tools with their static counterparts, but I don't
> > think this is a good idea, because in a normal system you don't want
> > little tools running around with big memory footprints.
>
> agree.
>
> > The desire is to have the tools execute easily, so long path names for
> > their location is not desirable. An alternate method would add a simple
> > short string to the front of the command names, so vi would becom rsqvi,
> > cp would become rsqcp, etc...
>
> FHS seems to use /sbin/ and a single 's' prefix...
and the "suggested" use of the 's' prefix?
> This can be a trouble: sh->ssh ash->sash, cp->scp... but if we add this
> prexif only to tools that are already in /sbin, it could work.
>
> /bin/sh /sbin/sh
> /bin/cp /sbin/cp
> /bin/rm /sbin/rm
> /bin/ln /sbin/ln
> /bin/ls /sbin/ls
> /bin/vi /sbin/vi
> /bin/chmod /sbin/chmod
> /bin/chown /sbin/chown
> /bin/mkdir /sbin/mkdir
This is a nice list as well. All these tools are useful in the rescue
situation
>
> /sbin/ldconfig (already static)
>
> /sbin/init (can we rename it ?)
I think so, but it will require a "special" boot entry in lilo at the very
least. (see my posting to Marcus)
> /sbin/sulogin (should be static in any case, IMO)
Another I hadn't thought of ;-)
>
> > Utilities using this naming convention could easily go into /sbin and /bin
> > although they would still need a full pathname when your path is broken.
> >
> > The main question is: "What constitutes a reasonable list of utilities?"
> >
> > I would suggest that we start with:
> >
> > ash
> > nvi/vim/elvis (someone else has to fight this one out)
> > ee
> > grep
> > awk
>
> ash is the better candidate. A simple sh could be enough but
> we have no such beast (for now). [ what about pdksh ? ]
>
> vi-clones are really a personnal choice. I prefer vim but in emergency
> situation, even the poorest vi is welcome. Without X or bindings extentions,
> they are quite similar in size (although vim is a little bigger).
>
> ee is not really required. I doubt that this package will be used by people
> that don't know vi.
Actually, since ee was the clear winner in the last "I hate vi" flame
wars, I was thinking of using it to replace vi ;-)
Well, it has a smaller footprint ;-)
>
> grep and awk are not required in this context.. nor is sed (vi can do
> the job).
Well, they are each useful to different types of administrators, but I
will probably settle for sed.
On the other hand, what if you need to install a package? The "minimal"
set of tools isn't quite so clear anymore...
I guess I can't expect to be able to install an arbitrary package under
rescue circumstances.
>
> > <add only absolutely necessary utilities at this point>
>
> see above. I don't know for mount and umount which I often needed in the
> past.
>
Depends on the packages used...see below.
> > Suggestions are welcome, but I just suggest that this list not get above
> > between 6 and 10 utilities, as I must pull in the sources for them all,
> > and manage their building together under the static linkage arrangement,
> > and then bundle the executables into one Debian package.
>
> with the list above, you need 4 (or 5) source packages :
> - fileutils
> - sysvinit
> - a shell
> - a vi
> - util-linux ([u]mount)
>
This is a good start! I get lots of extra "goodies" out of this selection
as well, so finding one more "useful" package (netstd?) will not break the
horses back, and should get me the remote login functionality others have
asked for.
This is actually starting to sound feasible!
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: