Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Replace 'sash' with 'busybox' as our static rescue shell
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:45:28
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Replace 'sash' with 'busybox' as our static rescue shell by Mike Frysinger
1 Mike Frysinger posted <200504220938.47437.vapier@g.o>, excerpted
2 below, on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:38:47 -0400:
4 > the idea is to remove 'sash' from our system target and replace it with
5 > busybox ...
7 That reminds me... I never /was/ able to get sash to compile here (~amd64,
8 originally installed as 2004.1, last tried again to compile sash as
9 2004.3, IIRC). I finally injected it, and continued on with the emerge
10 system...
12 Emergency shell? I have a total of four levels of hard drive backup, two
13 working and tested snapshots of both my root and /usr partitions, on each
14 of two different drives, which also contain independent LILO
15 installations, and separate /home partitions (only working and backup
16 drive snaps, not four snaps, of each of those). BTW, I've also a total
17 of 8 copies of my fstab and partition tables, two each on each of the two
18 roots on each drive, in case something happens to my working copies of
19 those. If those all fail at once, I suppose I'll be stuck booting from
20 LiveCD/DVD, but I hope to beat the odds on that happening. If it does,
21 I don't guess much of the system is likely to have survived to be
22 usable at all, anyway. =8^O
24 So... I'd say neither one is necessary in the system target.
26 --
27 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
28 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
29 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
33 --
34 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list