Editor in minimal system (was Re: The question of moving vi to /bin)

2009-06-26 Thread Jonathan McKeown
This whole thread only really got started because I questioned Manish Jain's 
assertion that there was no editor available in /bin.

To summarise:

There are several editors available ranging from ed (49604 bytes) and ee 
(60920 bytes) (both with two library dependencies) to emacs (in ports; 
5992604 bytes and 50 library dependencies in my installation) and probably 
beyond.

One of them, ed, is available in /bin and therefore in single-user mode.

Two of them, ed and vi, are available in /rescue and therefore in single-user 
mode even when something horrible happens and libraries are broken (although
/rescue/vi is currently slightly broken itself due to the termcap issue which 
is being fixed in -CURRENT and I hope will be MFC'd).

Anyone who wants /usr/bin/vi available in single-user mode can install FreeBSD 
with one large partition; or mount /usr once in single-user mode.

The original poster suggested that the fix for not having vi in /bin was not 
to have any editor at all in /rescue, which comprehensively misses the point 
of /rescue.

The only argument that's been advanced for moving vi seems to be ``vi should 
be in /bin because that's how I want it''. I find that argument unconvincing, 
but it's not up to me. I'm open to a sensible argument, if anyone has one.

Jonathan
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: Editor in minimal system (was Re: The question of moving vi to /bin)

2009-06-26 Thread Gary Kline
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
 This whole thread only really got started because I questioned Manish Jain's 
 assertion that there was no editor available in /bin.
 
 To summarise:
 
 There are several editors available ranging from ed (49604 bytes) and ee 
 (60920 bytes) (both with two library dependencies) to emacs (in ports; 
 5992604 bytes and 50 library dependencies in my installation) and probably 
 beyond.
 
 One of them, ed, is available in /bin and therefore in single-user mode.
 
 Two of them, ed and vi, are available in /rescue and therefore in single-user 
 mode even when something horrible happens and libraries are broken (although
 /rescue/vi is currently slightly broken itself due to the termcap issue which 
 is being fixed in -CURRENT and I hope will be MFC'd).
 
 Anyone who wants /usr/bin/vi available in single-user mode can install 
 FreeBSD 
 with one large partition; or mount /usr once in single-user mode.
 
 The original poster suggested that the fix for not having vi in /bin was not 
 to have any editor at all in /rescue, which comprehensively misses the point 
 of /rescue.
 
 The only argument that's been advanced for moving vi seems to be ``vi should 
 be in /bin because that's how I want it''. I find that argument unconvincing, 
 but it's not up to me. I'm open to a sensible argument, if anyone has one.
 
 Jonathan


What about making it be a build option?  Or at least symlink the
static vi in /rescue to /bin...?  I mean we have 1.5TB drives
now! 3700 blocks is a burp.  A small burp.

For that matter, why not have the option of moving the majority
of /rescue to /bin?  I've only had to use the rescue floppy a few
times, but did so only because i needed grep and vi to edit
/etc/fsck ...  And major, irksome desl using cat and ed to look
at that file.  And a few others in /etc.


gary



-- 
 Gary Kline  kl...@thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
http://jottings.thought.org   http://transfinite.thought.org
   For FBSD list: http://transfinite.thought.org/slicejourney.php
The 4.98a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org