Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 01/04/13 20:50, Jan Engelhardt escribió:
that's exactly right, to do almost any kind of meaningful repair you need to execute binaries that are dynamically linked, not only to libc but to other different libraries. (libz, lzma, crypto and long etc..)
A modern linux system just does not work in the old-fashioned way that having a shell around was a get-out-of-jail card for mistakes.
By modern, you mean any that are ~ suse 12.2 or later, or about a year old? It's not like it had to be designed that way, but some real bonehead decisions went into to make it so -- like putting in forward symlinks on partitions to ones that aren't mounted yet -- vs. the other way around. Things like that would have gotten most admins severely chastised at one point in time, yet now, distro's do it to cover up bad program design... Or, um yeah.. moving any and all recovery tools off of root to 2ndary partition... Or not having a clue why glibc can't be build statically for files in /bin or /sbin (or some of them anyway?)... Or not having a systemd that supports booting -- only loading system services? (and shoving the rest into hiding in a ramdisk that people are expected/required to use).... Can anyone name the benefits of putting the files that used to be in /bin in /usr/bin and replacing them with symlinks? Same for /sbin and /lib64 that couldn't have been solved by putting the originals in the root dirs and symlinks in /usr? Still haven't seen a good reason for requiring dynamic linking of the libc routines getXXX when the network is down and services aren't running. It's not like NIS/NSS/NSCD/winbind or such are actually working then. an SELINUX system should have a static lib for it's recovery tools. One likely wouldn't want to an SELINUX system w/o it's protections in place if you had a need for that type of system. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org