On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> >
> > There is also a similar case for /usr/bin vs /bin (e.g. some OSs
> > traditionally had very stripped down versions of a few command in
> > /sbin or /bin, then fuller ones in /usr/bin - trivial example would be
> > "vi" of course).
> >
>
> This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).
Urban legend. The "s" in /sbin stands for "system":
from "info standards" (aka GNU standards):
`sbindir'
The directory for installing executable programs that can be run
from the shell, but are only generally useful to system
administrators. This should normally be `/usr/local/sbin', but
write it as `$(exec_prefix)/sbin'. (If you are using Autoconf,
write it as `@sbindir@'.)
See also:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES
It's only the fact that many "system administrator executables" need to
be statically linked which had caused people to believe the "s" would
stand for static.
> We needed this back when live CDs didn't exist, or if you somehow
> foobared your GNU libc you had /sbin/sln (static link) to fix a
> system, now a days you pop in a CD, chroot to the saddened Linux
> system and repair it easily. You used /sbin as your emergency kit and
> superuser tools.
The last part of your sentence is the key. /sbin and /usr/sbin exist to
keep tools out of ordinary users' PATH.
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
