On Wed, 10 May 2000, Mark Kettenis wrote: ...
> 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. If I understand the rationale of /usr then the whole /usr tree may be mounted from another server and not be available at the time you need to runs a shell script. Should that be the case then any path under /usr would be out of the question. Hugo. -- Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting this tagline is illegal! (http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html)
