On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:52:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Richard Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> prompted a little: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:20:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Andreas Voegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > But programs should not be left in /sbin for historical reasons. > > > > > > Well, some scripts *do* refer to things by absolute path, so if they > > > are moved, then a symlink does not to be retained. > > s/does not/does need/ > and they refers to the programs being moved from sbin to bin or vice > versa.
So for compatibility, we should populate /sbin with a symlink for lots of binaries. It's ugly, but it does accomodate the goals: 1) /bin contains binaries that a normal user will want to run, 2) /sbin contains binaries for the superuser. Related: some of the residents of Debian GNU/Linux's /sbin might or do qualify for /libexec; getty is already there. Presumably, any candidates for /libexec should also be moved and linked, for compatibility? Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
