Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 06:51:37AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > If what you say were true, you would be arguing that NO programs should be
> > > dynamicly linked. That would be stupid.
> > > Dynamic linking only breaks when there is something wrong.
> > > Building a distribution is a coordinated integration task, and
> > > when all of the pieces-parts aren't compatible for one reason or
> > > another problems like the recent bash failure show up...and then
> > > we fix it.
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On the other hand, Debian's documentation on what to do when the
> > system goes south is rather limited.
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 12:44:50PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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.
Hmm..
The fundamental issue, as I see it, is robustness of Debian systems
under a variety of circumstances.
So, I think it's apropos to consider a variety of circumstances..
> > [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.
That feels right.
> > Maybe in my fabulous free time...
> I believe Joseph Carter is the person to contact. He said he was still
> interested in the Rescue Package concept, and probably has the same
> "free time" problem ;-)
Heh.. well, if he's already working on it I don't have a lot to add
at the moment.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: