Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin
- From: Ben Bell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:51:58 +0000
- Message-id: <19990301135157.G22543@deus.net>
- In-reply-to: <19990223021343.I26485@debian.org>; from Joseph Carter on Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:13:43AM -0800
- References: <19990221202910.A31318@glitch.snoozer.net> <XFMail.email@example.com> <19990222024252.N962@debian.org> <19990222124757.G17756@spinnaker.rhein.de> <19990223021343.I26485@debian.org>
On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:13:43AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > sbin is for STATIC binaries.
> > Please read section 3.10 of fsstnd (/usr/doc/debian-policy/fsstnd)
> > before you write something like this...
> FSSTND is a Linuxism.
Debian is a Linux.
Whatever the original purpose, even Solaris would appear not to follow it
these days. A quick peek at my Solaris 2.7 (or do they call it 7 now?) box
shows that 10 /sbin/ binaries are dynamically linked (against /usr/lib and
/etc/lib) and 9 are static (su.static is actually dynamically linked, but to
only one lib in /etc/lib!).
Original designs get corrupted - which is why we have a formalised FSSTND,
and why we should stick to whatever it says.
+-----Ben Bell - "A song, a perl script and the occasional silly sig.-----+
/// email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.deus.net/~bjb/
bjb Snail: 20 Guildford Road West, Farnborough, GU14 6PU
\_/ "I aim to please, but I may need some target practice."