#! -- reconsideration?
kettenis at wins.uva.nl
Tue May 9 16:24:13 PDT 2000
From: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan at transmeta.com>
Date: 09 May 2000 14:31:24 -0700
Dan Kegel <dank at alumni.caltech.edu> 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
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.
More information about the lsb-discuss