On 11/16/18 4:42 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
What *I'm* talking about is I want to continue having /sbin separate
from /bin and /usr/bin, because the /sbin varieties holds statically
compiled programs guaranteed to work at the earliest of boots, and in
the case of /sbin, guaranteed to be available as soon as / is mounted.
Steve, I'm not sure where you arrived at the notion that binaries in
/sbin should be expected to be, or necessarily ought to be, static
binaries. I'm not aware of any such norm. (Compiling static is a crude
but certainly effective way to end some dependency issues, but not
necessarily desirable.)
In case you were not aware (and absolutely no condescension intended if
you were already well aware of this), the 's' in 'sbin' signifies
'normally needed only by the superuser'. It doesn't signify static.
I thought it was "system", but I don't even know who originated the
separation. It certainly precedes Linux.
As for the "statically linked binaries in /sbin", that may come from the
(formerly?) common practice of having all the binaries needed for system
startup statically linked in case something happened to /lib.
It's scary how unreliable our systems used to be compared to now.
--
Daniel Taylor
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
