From: Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 09 May 2000 14:31:24 -0700
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now that you've explained your objection to /bin/posixsh, can you > comment on /usr/posix/bin/sh? If it's necessary to use a name other than /bin/sh, I would prefer a file in /bin. "posixsh" is okay. I don't really like /usr/posix/bin/sh. I would prefer to avoid a new hard-coded pathname under /usr and I definitely object to a new top-level directory under /usr just for POSIX programs. I think it would be confusing and it's usage would be very inconsistent in practice. I don't like a hardcoded path under /usr either, the primary reason being that the Hurd (you known, the GNU "kernel") won't have /usr. I've been told that in the past /usr was introduced in UNIX only because all utilities didn't fit on one disk anymore. Nowadays, there are much more elegant methods to solve that problem, and /usr just means another entry in the root directory. It would be a pity if we needed /usr just to be POSIX conformant. Mark
