Quoting Arnt Karlsen (arnt@???):

> ..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.