> Jeremy Herbison wrote: > > Okay, but in the event that it finds a problem, you'll still need a > recovery > > disk of some sort. Or, if it can't run fsck at all because fsck is > linked to > > a damaged .so, you'll know there is a problem anyhow and you'll STILL > need > > a recovery disk with a different fsck binary :) > > Which is why I said it's better to use a static binary. :) >
No, my point is that the binary will have to be on a recovery disk in order to do the recovery anyhow, so it doesn't matter if the one on the root partition gets damaged. Anyhow it doesn't really matter I guess, I'm just being argumentative. Jeremy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
