#! -- reconsideration?

Mark Kettenis 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 mailing list