On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 06:16:36PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > The GNU project adopted /sbin because ordinary users should not be > > burdened with executables that they *cannot* run usefully. (Which is > > in fact the same reason that they are in /etc or /sbin in BSD.) > > I would be somewhat happier if that were the language in the FHS or Debian > policy. However, there are many programs in sbin that are useful for ordinary > users including the two explicitly listed in the FSSTND, traceroute and > ifconfig.
Ideally, they possibly shouldn't be. Why is traceroute in /sbin anyway? It's automatically setuid - doesn't this make putting it in /sbin pointless? > I personally don't buy this logic at all for two reasons: > > 1) Nobody has been able to explain why these programs are a "burden" There's no point in having programs like shutdown, fdisk etc. in the users' path, and having them there could irritate in, for exanple, tab completion. > I guess I propose that either of two things happen: > > 1) /sbin and /usr/sbin are put into everyone's path. Is there any other immediate solution? [snip] > or there's a third solution > > 3) abolish /sbin and /usr/sbin and put these binaries in /bin and /usr/sbin. > Make symlinks so scripts still work. This is kind of ugly. > Obviously the path of least resistance at least for potato is (1). But it's not a good long-term solution, as it makes /sbin pointless. Right? -- alisdair mcdiarmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [burnt toast is what comes of trying to do too many things at once] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
