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