On Tuesday 13 October 2009 11:30:26 Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 11:38 +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > > > FYI: this breaks xfstests as it expects mkfs.* only in /sbin. > > > > > > Wouldn't be surprised if others tools do the same. > > > > > > > > the other example is /sbin/mkfs, this tool uses > > > > > > > > "PATH=/sbin:/sbin/fs:/sbin/fs.d:/etc/fs:/etc" > > > > > > you're going to fix it up or should i send a patch ? > > > > Bad question :-) > > > > The question is: do we really expect mkfs.<type> and > > fsck.<type> tools in /usr/sbin? > > > > Scott, Kay, any comment or suggestion? It would be nice to minimize > > number of differences between (at least mainstream) distributions. > > I figure that somebody will always try and use them for a root > filesystem, or /usr, so they should be in /sbin any system that is using cramfs as a rootfs isnt going to be rescuing itself. if its r/o rootfs is screwed, then the system is screwed, and having /usr available wouldnt change that. using a rootfs bfs (let alone any generic partition) is unrealistic as well (simply read some info about what bfs actually is for). > (Or somebody will need to rescue such a filesystem without their /usr > available) for non-critical filesystems, it doesnt make sense to force them into the rootfs. if you want to rescue non critical things, then your own system should be past the critical stage (i.e. /usr is mounted). i dont think catering to this scenario makes sense. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
