/usr/local/bin vs /usr/local/sbin

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:03:36PM -0700, Kurt Granroth wrote:
> Jay wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> >> What's the 's' supposed to stand for? System (as in OS)?
> >> Where should application scripts go by convention? Somewhere
> >> referenced by $PATH I'm imagining. /usr/local/bin?
> > 
> > Um, good guesses on the 'security' and 'system' fronts, but
> > traditionally (think old UNIX conventions here), the 's' in sbin stands
> > for 'static'. It is intended as the place for static-compiled binaries
> > (as opposed to dynamic-compiled binaries). Static binaries would also be
> > best for functions like booting and system recovery, since during those
> > tasks libraries and linkers may not be available/functioning.
> 
> Traditionally, yes, but that has to be an outdated convention by now.  A
> quick look at the binaries in /sbin on a typical Linux system shows that
> very very few are static anymore.
> 
> I tend to think off it like so:
> 
> /sbin -> Utilities dealing with low level systems like file systems,
> networks, modules, etc.  All typically run only for root.
> 
> /usr/sbin -> System daemons like cupsd, mysqld, imapd, smbd, and so and
> so forth.  Also contains other root-only utilities that aren't as low level.

Traditionally, and still in spirit. Nothing in /bin and /sbin should
depend on /usr being mounted. If it does, then it's broken, IMHO.

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD Users Group
dwchandler at stilyagin.com   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |