From: jplooney at domain compapp.dcu.ie
Date: Wed 04 Aug 1999 - 09:06:53 IST
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
> (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.
-- Microsoft - the best reason in the world to drink beer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:25 GMT