I don't really get the point here: > Few people would probably *change* /usr/bin/screen to /bin/screen. Yes, because screen is not a shell. Screen is terminal multiplexer which just uses a shell. And as such wrappers go, they're not essential to the OS, but mere a nice to have user command. And now taking a look what /bin is all about: Quoting FHS 3.0: 3.4. /bin : Essential user command binaries (for use by all users) 3.4.1. Purpose /bin contains commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, but which are required when no other filesystems are mounted (e.g. in single user mode). It may also contain commands which are used indirectly by scripts. (further down there /bin/sh is even listed as a mandatory asset) And quoting FHS 3.0 further: 4.4. /usr/bin : Most user commands 4.4.1. Purpose This is the primary directory of executable commands on the system. Be aware on that topic that FHS 3.0 does not require /usr to be on the same partition as the root FS, not even being a local FS of sorts nor being exclusive for the current machine. Shared network storage is a valid option. On the other hand it is mandatory for /bin and /sbin they be available when no other FS can be mounted (i. e. no uplink, damaged /etc/fstab ...), thus they have to be on the root partition, hence the condition there has to be at least one shell physically available there for rescuing purposes. Now one could argue that everything that is not explicitely a mandatory asset should go to /usr/bin, and I tend to agree to that, but talking about shells in particular (and not wrappers) I'd say they're quite essential to a OS, so there's a valid reason for them to be in /bin. But then, I'm known to be a little bit of a bean counter considering those issues, and thus maybe not the best of advisers here. So take my comment for what you consider it worth. BR Jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part