On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 18:32 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > >The service manager must be allowed to operate with /bin only. Nothing > >else. > >(Let alone fixing it if things go terribly wrong.) > > > > > I object. This requirement will keep us in the 1970s forever. It has > already inflicted enough damage in forcing untold millions to learn vi. Don't want to lean VI? Get a knpppix rescue CD and use what-ever-GUI-editor-you-like. Nobody is forcing you. I am asking that you don't blow thing up just so you can enjoy that GUI-editors of your more. > > This distinction between /bin and /usr/bin is completely artificial. If > initrd (or whatever) was able to find our /, it should be able to find > our /usr. > Umm? A. Who said that both / and /usr are on the same partition? (Or on the same machine for that matter?) B. I usually create a backup of /bin and /sbin inside my /boot which usually sits on the separate software RAID1 partition, while my main root is partition(s) are on a RAID5 software raid with LVM. I assume that I'm now forced to create a full backup of my /usr just so I can get the service manager to work in case of disaster? There's more at stake here then the configuration file itself. In my view, the service manager should be simple, bash-based (if possible), and fully contained within /bin (initrd-able is even better). You (as in "XML-people") want to create a monster, with XML parsing libraries, GUI, and god-knows-what, that may (or-may-not) improve performance. In essence, you are about to create a Windows like service manager. I'd suggest you re-read my first statement on why Microsoft's service manager sucks. Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
