Re: Possible ITP: Rescue Package
First I want to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion.
All comments were interesting and allowed me to think about the problem
from several different perspectives. Thank you all for your help.
I have decided that the first version of this package will not mess with
init. A very little investigation indicates that even with a static init,
the chance that the system will come up is minimal. The first time init
tries to call some dynamicly linked program we are up the creek.
I don't have enough time to hack away at init and make all its bits
executable, so at least for now I'm going to leave init out. With some
help, I'm sure that something can be worked out later.
Although it is a bit easier, and will certainly be incorporated when I can
figure out how best to impliment, remote access will not be in the first
release either. This _will_ be a high priority though.
So, in the first release you will get most of what is in file-utils, ash,
nvi and ee. You can still recover with 'append init=/wherever/ash' this
way. I hope this will be a useful start for this project.
The only thing left is to decide where to put the pieces.
There are basicly two suggestions. I like both ;-)
1. add the s_ prefix to all the programs and put them in their proper
2. pick a specific location for the static versions and keep their
"proper" names so a path specification is sufficient to "make things work
Someone suggested /rescue, which brings up a question: What is the policy
on creating directories in /? I seem to remember some restriction.
This means it should go into /something/rescue, and the ones the leap to
(in order of preference)
Is there a better place?
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-