[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Sample scenario:
> Suppose init and su are both borked, and you don't have sudo.  You're
> logged in as a regular user on the console, but you need root.  If you
> log out, you'll lose your tty, and init won't respawn (remember, it's
> borked).  When init went down, it took all the running gettys with it. 
> How do you get to root to fix the problem?

reboot, init=/bin/sash passed to the kernel.

> Now, what all this has to do with the acceptability of putting Hurd
> translators in /hurd is lost on me.

nothing, to be perfectly honest. 

i'm not averse to the idea of translators living in /hurd, since it is a
hurd specific thing. i'm averse to saying ``they -have- to be there,
because <insert falsehood here>.'' the ``user convienece'' and
``tradition'' arguments are actually both valid, and sufficient for my
purposes. (they also anser -should-, not -must-) the ``they cannot be
run by hand, so should stay out of $PATH'' is a false one, as
demonstrated by some of the hurd developers themselves. mind you, i am
not too hip on the intracacies of passive translators

	on two counts: 1) it is possible to have a translator that is a
	normal proggy as run by a user, and 2) there exist things in a
	user's $PATH that probably should not be there

i coulda sworn, though that my /bin/login is non-suid . . .

i'll verify _that_ when i get home


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: