--On Thursday, August 25, 2005 02:45:35 PM -0400 "N.J. Thomas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But when things have gone so wrong that you actually have to use the
tools in /rescue, you are generally not in the mood to deal with
something as archaic as ed. =-)
To keep a copy of the e3 binary so
* Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-25 19:22:48 +0100]:
> > BUGS
> >
> > Most of the rescue tools work even in a fairly crippled system.
> > The most egregious exception is the rescue version of vi(1),
> > which currently requires that /usr be mounted so that it can
> >
N.J. Thomas wrote:
BUGS
Most of the rescue tools work even in a fairly crippled system.
The most egregious exception is the rescue version of vi(1),
which currently requires that /usr be mounted so that it can
access the termcap(5) files. Hopefully, a failsafe ter
* Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-25 17:10:37 +0300]:
> On 2005-08-25 10:04, "N.J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the meantime, how can I run /rescue/vi without /usr?
>
> I don't think you can. It only needs a read-only /usr though, so if
> /usr is a local filesystem you
On 2005-08-25 10:04, "N.J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just booted into single user on a 5.4-p6 system. I needed to edit
> something on the root fs, but /rescue/vi wouldn't work, it complained
> about not finding the terminal database.
>
> I saw some mention in the archives from June abo
I just booted into single user on a 5.4-p6 system. I needed to edit
something on the root fs, but /rescue/vi wouldn't work, it complained
about not finding the terminal database.
I saw some mention in the archives from June about fixing this, though I
don't think anything has been comitted yet.
I
