[gentoo-dev] Re: Replace 'sash' with 'busybox' as our static rescue shell

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Mike Frysinger posted <200504220938.47437.vapier@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:38:47 -0400:

> the idea is to remove 'sash' from our system target and replace it with 
> busybox ...

That reminds me... I never /was/ able to get sash to compile here (~amd64,
originally installed as 2004.1, last tried again to compile sash as
2004.3, IIRC). I finally injected it, and continued on with the emerge
system...

Emergency shell?  I have a total of four levels of hard drive backup, two
working and tested snapshots of both my root and /usr partitions, on each
of two different drives, which also contain independent LILO
installations, and separate /home partitions (only working and backup
drive snaps, not four snaps, of each of those).  BTW, I've also a total
of 8 copies of my fstab and partition tables, two each on each of the two
roots on each drive, in case something happens to my working copies of
those. If those all fail at once, I suppose I'll be stuck booting from
LiveCD/DVD, but I hope to beat the odds on that happening.  If it does,
I don't guess much of the system is likely to have survived to be
usable at all, anyway.  =8^O

So... I'd say neither one is necessary in the system target.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list