On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 06:37:12PM +0100, kevin lyda mentioned:
> >> feel-alike. Like linux, /usr/sbin is a DIRTY LIE, and doesn't contain
> >> statically linked binaries, but misc supervisor ones.
> > sbin = system binaries. I don't perceive this as a dirty lie.
>> in addition /sbin doesn't need to have static executables, it just
> needs to not depend on /usr. on most unicies i've used it hasn't,
> though some fancy config tools on redhat need /usr/lib (but if /usr
> is hosed you probably aren't configuring sendmail...)
Well, anything in /usr isn't supposed to be needed if the system s in
trouble. Like when shared libraries don't work...
I was certain that /sbin was for static executables. Has this been
changed, now that we have elf, and it's harder to break ld.so, or was it
always like that ? I know on SunOS, everything in /sbin was statically
linked...
> (as an aside i find linuxconf to be a bloated mess - it's responsible
> for all the /usr dependant libs in /sbin)
Can't be worse than Solaris. /bin is a link to /usr/bin - ack.
Kate
--
Microsoft - the best reason in the world to drink beer
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
