Got it. Thanks a million! I learned a lot from your responses :) Jorge
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 05:46, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 08:17:09PM -0700, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > > At this point, I think it'd be worth revisiting, at the project level, > > the historical tradition of leaving the sbin directories out of non-root > > paths. Setting aside all the single user desktop and laptop systems, > > there are enough alternative ways to grant restricted root (file ACLs, > > etc), and to run in alternate filesystem namespaces (e.g. containers), > > that the functional distinctions that lead to the original directory > > split are probably applicable in a minority of situations these days. > > Sure, and I often use /sbin/mke2fs on create file system images on > plain files and then corrupt them using /sbin/debugfs to create > regression tests for e2fsck, and I do all of this w/o being root. So > I have /sbin and /usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin in my path. Along with > a whole bunch of other customizations in my dot files, of course. > > But my usage is an edge case, and asking Debian to make changes to > global changes to the defaults for people like me was never something > I thought was justifiable. Ultimately, if we believe that someday > we'll have the year of the Linux Desktop, where the primary > applications used by users are things like Firefox, Open Office, > Tuxracer, etc., adding /sbin and /usr/sbin might not be doing those > users a favor --- and those of us who are more technical are perfectly > capable of customizing our dot files. (Heck, I just pull a git repo > into ~/dotfiles, and then run "make install" and I get a custom set of > my dotfiles for that installation. :-) > > > This isn't something that I feel strongly about, though. Anybody who > > does should retitle this bug appropriately and reassign it to the > > 'general' pseudopackage, whereupon it can be discussed on debian-devel. > > Otherwise it should get tagged wontfix, unless someone thinks this is an > > appropriate change to introduce at the cloud image level (I would not > > agree with this). > > I agree this should be a project-level decision, and not cloud-image > specific. I personally am against changing the default. That's > because if someone is installing Debian on student laptops / desktops > at an educational institution like MIT, most of those users really > don't need /sbin and /usr/sbin; Debian users include far more than > just system administrators, kernel developers, and devops types. > > I don't feel very strongly about it, though, so if the project as a > whole thinks Debian should be optimized for technical users, it's not > something I'll lose any sleep over. I replace all of the default > dotfiles for myself, anyway. :-) > > - Ted >
