Re: Intent To Split: netbase
- To: Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Intent To Split: netbase
- From: tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 20 Sep 2000 13:44:05 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Joey Hess's message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:49:42 -0700"
- References: <200008102352.e7ANqKO17313@gondor.apana.org.au> <200008122342.e7CNgo201776@gondor.apana.org.au> <20000813010251.A424@debian.org> <20000813172007.B19275@deadbeast.net> <email@example.com> <20000814215440.B26174@deadbeast.net> <20000814225306.H9433@kitenet.net> <20000815124013.E10933@deadbeast.net> <20000815064942.D706@silk.kitenet.net>
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > To be frank I'm not distressed by the thought of lots of programs moving
> > from sbin to bin, or even the elimination of sbin altogether.
> Perhaps it would be neat to move back to what sbin was orginially used
> for -- static binaries. Erik Andrerson has a whole slew of them (busybox
> et al) that are just looking for a home.
Debian's definitions came from the GNU Coding Standards, which came
from BSD, in which "sbin" doesn't mean "static bin", it means
"superuser bin", and replaced the older scheme of putting those
programs in /etc.
There was another system (Missed Em Vee) which had a different "sbin".