Re: traceroute in /usr/bin, not /usr/sbin
Hello Herbert,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 09:19:19AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Then you mustn't have been listening to me. The sbin rule as it stands
> will force us to move sendmail as well. Anyone remember the fun we had
Ah, I did forget this argument, that is true. My apologies. Thank you
for responding to one of my posts; may I have an explicit answer from you as
to if you think the FHS mandates that traceroute be moved?
> moving it into sbin in the first place? I just can't see how anyone will
> take the FHS seriously when sendmail is moved twice.
Now I understand your argument! You don't think we should take the FHS
seriously, is that accurate? If so, I'm sorry, but that's a fight you have
already lost. As it stands, we have promised to follow the FHS[1]. Not
slavishly, it's true, but unless it conflicts with the rest of Policy or
unless it causes terminal breakage in the package, you must follow policy
and make your packages compatible with the FHS. You have a second option of
course: to change the FHS or Policy. If you choose not to exercise that
option, please comply with policy as written. I would consider a symlink a
reasonable solution, even though it is admittedly ugly. Would you consider
a wrapper in /usr/sbin/traceroute that simply execs /usr/bin/traceroute (and
could eventually warn about its deprecation) less ugly?
I also don't remember the move of sendmail, it was before my time, and
apparently further back than the archives at <http://lists.debian.org/>.
I'm sure it was painful though. While looking around the archives for
comments on that time however, I did happen across you (Herbert, that is)
saying relatively recently, "The FSSTND moved [sendmail] to /usr/sbin. If
it turns out that the FHS requires it to be in /usr/bin and we actually
implemented that, then I would have no problems with moving traceroute."[2]
It sounds to me like you are more concerned that traceroute not be singled
out than resisting moving it for any technical reasons, especially given
your comment in a previously referenced mail[3]. I do hope I've
misunderstood you.
As I understand it, sendmail is not your package, so you need not
concern yourself with it. Perhaps an exception (as allowed above) could be
made for sendmail, or perhaps another long migration plan is warranted.
That is not the point. Either we are trying to be FHS compatible or we are
not. If we are not, that's fine, but we must be honest about it.
Even a good faith statement from you that you are implementing a
migration plan for traceroute that will take several releases would make me
happier. A good faith statement, mind you.
Rene
References:
[1] <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html>, and
<http://bugs.debian.org/98291>
[2] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0007/msg01631.html>
[3] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0106/msg00781.html>
--
+--- (Rene Weber is <rene_autoreply@elvenlord.com>) ---+
| "Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, |
| it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and |
| goes through their pockets." -- Eddy Peters |
+--- E-Mail Policy & web page: <http://satori.home.dhs.org/~rweber/> ---+
Reply to: