Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no): > ..the output from my "life boat" install of > devuan_ascii_2.0.0_amd64_desktop-live.iso > is quite telling:
[snip] My view: It's not necessarily problematic that something in /sbin or /bin depends on /usr to function -- and most of the tools you list IMO are not a problem on that account. You might have different criteria in mind, so please feel free to clarify, if so. My view is that executables in /sbin and /bin _required for maintenance in /usr's absence_ must not depend on /usr being mounted. Many executables somehow get installed there anyway; probably they'd have been better written to /usr/sbin and /usr/bin, but that's a separate issue. As Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.3[1] puts it: /sbin contains binaries essential for booting, restoring, recovering, and/or repairing the system in addition to the binaries in /bin. /bin contains commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, but which are required when no other filesystems are mounted (e.g. in single user mode). It may also contain commands which are used indirectly by scripts Many of the utilities you found using that script _aren't_ IMO required during the sort of maintenance operations contemplated here. [1] Yes, FHS 3.0 also exists. FWIW, I have reservations about its general soundness under Linux Foundation's LSB Workgroup authorship that made substantial revisions from Dan Quinlan, Rusty Russell, and the late Chris Yeoh's universally admired FHS 2.x work. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
