On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 19:45 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Are we 100% sure there is no collision between /bin and /sbin contents > today ? I don't see any on my F8 install, but I do see collisions on /usr/bin and /sbin: cluestix# cd /sbin; for f in *;do [ -e /usr/bin/$f ] && echo $f;done halt poweroff reboot These entries in /usr/bin are symlinks to "consolehelper". There seems to be considerable overlap between /sbin and /usr/sbin, but the overlap is either due to static vs. dynamic executables or because the file in /usr/sbin is a symlink to the /sbin version. As for /bin and /usr/bin: the overlap in files consists of symlinks only. (Though interestingly enough, some links in /usr/bin are to "../../bin/foo", some are of the form "/bin/foo"; to avoid surprises, we should pick one or the other, and the relative path version is usually preferred AFAIK.) Except for "ex" (/bin/ex -> /bin/vi ; /usr/bin/ex -> /usr/bin/vim), it is feasible to lump /bin and /usr/bin together (like Solaris does). However, merging /usr/sbin and /sbin does not make much sense because of the statically linked executables in /sbin (for which you will be grateful if you accidentally hose libc.so). Because of the consolehelper links in /usr/bin, you can either merge /bin and /usr/bin OR /bin and /sbin, but not both. Given the choice, I'd opt for /bin and /usr/bin. As hard as it may be to believe, some of the reasoning behind design decisions made some 30 years ago still holds validity today... ;-) Cheers, Steven (PATH=$PATH:/usr/sbin:/sbin) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
