> [mailto:fedora-devel-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Timothy > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote: > > This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin). > > That's not what the FHS states > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>. /bin is > for "Essential command binaries that need to be available in > single user > mode; for all users (e.g., cat, ls, cp).", and /sbin is for "Essential > system binaries (e.g., init, route, ifup).", and similarly for /bin > and /sbin that resides in /usr, but with the added > "Non-essential" bit. > The key, IMO, is that the ${prefix}/bin is meant for all users, where > ${prefix}/sbin is not (restricted access). Exactly, and most binaries were statically built when you didnt have /usr mounted, but even then libc resided in /lib. But regardless, the FHS is not that old because it doesnt even mention the reason /sbin existed as Alan pointed out. I wouldn't go fully by what the FHS states vs the historical reasons. > > Back to the question at hand... Now I am not opposed to (not that my > opinion makes a difference in this) symlinking the > appropriate binaries > from ${prefix}/bin to ${prefix}/sbin for FHS compliance and > support for > older things and have that provided as a separate package (thank you > Seth for reminding me ;). > I would rather not go that route, just append /sbin /usr/sbin in $PATH at end and be done with it. Shawn. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
