/usr/bin/ls is replaced by /sbin/ls?

[huaxiang]

1、/usr/bin/ls is replaced by /sbin/ls;
2、now, the 11.31 system running well；
3、 is there any bad influence to the system ?
4、 shoud i copy a "ls" file from other system to cover the "ls" in /sbin/?

[Autocross.US]

copying /sbin/ls to /usr/bin/ls shouldn't be a probably. It may be useful for users that do not have /sbin in their PATH to copy the file to /usr/bin.

[Autocross.US]

copying /sbin/ls to /usr/bin/ls shouldn't be a problem. It may be useful for users that do not have /sbin in their PATH to copy the file to /usr/bin.

[James R. Ferguson]

Hi:

Why would you copy '/sbin/ls' over '/usr/bin/ls' ?

The variations in '/sbin' are intended to by used in single-user mode where '/usr' isn't mounted and thus binaries with dynamically linked libraries that live in '/usr' aren't available.

The variations in '/usr' use dynamically linked libraries and therefore afford a slightly smaller memory footprint (overall) when there are multiple instantiations.

You should maintanin and retain the correct variations.

Regards!

...JRF...

[Torsten.]

I took this from a 11.11 system, but IMHO it is very similar on 11.31 too:

# whereis ls
ls: /sbin/ls /usr/bin/ls /usr/share/man/man1.Z/ls.1
# file /sbin/ls
/sbin/ls: PA-RISC1.1 shared executable
# file /usr/bin/ls
/usr/bin/ls: PA-RISC1.1 shared executable dynamically linked

You see the difference. I assume it must be in /usr/bin by default. Did you delete it?

[Dennis Handly]

>3ã is there any bad influence to the system?

swverify will be upset. Also ls(1) will take more memory to run. It also won't support locales.
The question is why do this, as JRF asked?