Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't

1995-12-27 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
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

Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't

1995-12-26 Thread H.J. Lu
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

Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't

1995-12-26 Thread David Engel
> 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

Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't

1995-12-26 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
> > > > 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

Re: Bug#2065: single user isn't

1995-12-25 Thread Jeff Noxon
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