You (H.J. Lu) wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 22:49:53 -0500 (EST)
> From: "H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't
> To: David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Which brings up another question: in libc 5.2.18
Hi There,
> This caused me considerable grief when one of the disks on my system was
starting to fail, and I was desperately trying to extract a few critical
files that had been updated since the last backup. The cycle was to boot,
snag a few files before the disk warmed up and failed, then
On Tue, 26 Dec 1995, David Engel wrote:
> > Which brings up another question: in libc 5.2.18, struct utmp was changed.
> > At least I think it was 5.2.18, so 5.2.17 should be OK. To maintain
> > compatibility with a.out and programs compiled with libc < 5.2.18, I
> > think I'll downgrade 1 patchl
> Which brings up another question: in libc 5.2.18, struct utmp was changed.
> At least I think it was 5.2.18, so 5.2.17 should be OK. To maintain
> compatibility with a.out and programs compiled with libc < 5.2.18, I
> think I'll downgrade 1 patchlevel. I hope HJ Lu sees this is a mistake and
> ba
> >
> > It is utterly unreasonable for the system to try and do fsck's when the
> > system is booted with 'linux single'. The whole point of a single user boot
> > is that something is wrong that needs reasoned attention from a system
> > adminitrator. A single-user boot should do absolutely *no
This has been reported before as a bug. This time I just thought i'd
chime in and say "me too."
Thanks,
Jeff
>
> Package: base
> Version: 0.93.6-13
>
> It is utterly unreasonable for the system to try and do fsck's when the
> system is booted with 'linux single'. The whole point of a single
Package: base
Version: 0.93.6-13
It is utterly unreasonable for the system to try and do fsck's when the
system is booted with 'linux single'. The whole point of a single user boot
is that something is wrong that needs reasoned attention from a system
adminitrator. A single-user boot should do a
7 matches
Mail list logo
