It is currently Tue, 07 Dec 2021 01:26:42 GMT

Author Message
 /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin etc

Could somebody give me a reason why I shouldn't create one directory for binaries say /usr/bin, move all files from /bin and /usr/local/bin to /usr/bin and make /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin symlinks to /usr/bin (and the same thing for the /sbin /usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin)?

I'm building my own 'distribution' from sources and it made me wonder why I should have three bin dirs in my case (there's no need for system dependant/independant seperation since this box  isn't on any network (other than Internet) and no other people besides me login to this box).

I'm sure there are several good reasons, but I wonder if they would apply to me in this case.

Thanks for any answer and if it's not a problem for you, i'd like to receive a response via email.

Gerard  Beekmans

 Thu, 02 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT   
 /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin etc

Suppose you move eg. /bin/mount to /usr/bin/mount - what will happen
if /usr is on a different partition than / (which is quite common)?
You'd need to mount /usr, but 'mount' itself resides on /usr. Chicken
and egg. Bad Idea[tm]. And that's just _one_ example ...

I'd _strongly_ suggest to (1) have a good look at the FHS v2.0 (Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard) at <>, and (2) fix your
line length (come on, I'm sure Pan can do better than this ;-).

- Thomas Zajic  <thomasDOTzajicATtelewebDOTat>  Linux-2.0.38/slrn- -
-  "It is not easy to cut through a human head with a hacksaw."  (M. C.)  -

 Thu, 02 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT   
 /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin etc

[Posted and mailed, per req]

[Gerard Beekmans <>]

As Thomas already said, you should definitely read the FHS (Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard) at .  And, if you want
to maintain compatibility with other distributions (i.e. third-party
software will know where to find things) you should try to follow it.

He also gave the primary reason: long Unix tradition separates out the
"/" filesytem from the "/usr" filesystem, and programs deemed essential
for system maintenance and so forth are usually put in /bin or /sbin so
that they will work without /usr being mounted.  (Exactly the same
applies to /lib and /usr/lib.)  Interestingly, AIX has only /lib and
/sbin, with /bin -> usr/bin.

If you read the FHS, you will note that it puts all directories which
need to be read-write in normal system operations outside the /usr
hierarchy; this makes it possible to mount /usr read-only, reducing
risk of filesystem corruption.  This is one good reason to separate /
and /usr.  There are others.

Peter Samuelson

 Thu, 02 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT   
 /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin etc

This seems to be common on (newer?) SysV systems. SunOS has /bin ->
/usr/bin, and /lib -> /usr/lib; statically linked versions of things
like the shell are replicated in /sbin.


`If both of these are true, Unix98 ptys are fully operational, and
 ready to destroy unarmed planets.' --- Richard Gooch

 Thu, 09 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT   
   [ 4 post ] 

Similar Threads

1. /usr/bin/ls /usr/ucb/ls /usr/local/bin/ls

2. /usr/local/bin/perl ->/usr/bin/perl

3. /usr/local/bin vs. /usr/bin

4. #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w || /usr/bin/perl -w

5. Difference between /etc/bin /usr/local/bin

6. relationship between /usr/bin/adb and /usr/bin/ps

7. /usr/xpg4/bin/tr bug (or don't use /usr/xpg4/bin)

8. /usr/dt/bin/dtksh and /usr/bin/ksh

9. why /usr/bin/mailx /usr/bin/mail set the group to be that of the sender

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software