Re: traceroute in /usr/bin, not /usr/sbin
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
>
> [FHS's definition for /sbin-programs]
>
> > As a system administrator (IANADD), I find it a very good definition.
> > Why? It's completely operational in nature: unless I change something,
> > if an ordinary user wants to run, say, traceroute, he can't, because
> > it's in /usr/sbin and not /usr/bin. So this:
> >
> > 'if a normal (not a system adminstrator) user will ever run it directly,
> > then it must
> > be placed in one of the "bin" directories'
> >
> > is literally true, barring symlinks, changing PATH, etc.
>
> No.
>
> Saying that an ordinary user cannot run a program in [/usr]/sbin is simply
> incorrect. He can.
Can't *without special effort*. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I.e., he can't just type 'traceroute'.
Not that this is a problem for me, actually.
The question is what he'd be doing when he runs a
> program from /sbin. When running ifconfig, he'd be doing system
> administration tasks (why else would you need the IP address *when you're
> already logged on to that machine*?)
>
> When running traceroute, you'd be doing network administration
> tasks. Which is simply not the same as system administration.
>
> The difference here is: you're thinking as a user that wants to run the
> program. I'm thinking as someone that has to decide where a program needs
> to be.
That's kind of my point, actually. I'm arguing that the FHS' language
is reflecting "my" thinking.
>
> > I would argue that the FHS definition reflects the practical effects of
> > placement of the programs, rather than some attempt to define them in
> > human language terms. I don't understand why folks are getting hung up
> > on whether they're "primarily" "administration tools".
> >
> > WRT the example, defining chopsticks as "Chinese utensils" has no
> > operational effect on whether I can use them, but putting them in a box
> > that by default only Chinese people would be able to look in sure would.
>
> Anyway. I'm sick of this discussion. Let's cut it ;-)
>
Fine with me, long as *I* get the last word. ;-) Go back to great
coding and packaging, guys! :-)
It's quite obvious that nothing will be done, in any case.
Actually, I care very little about where traceroute goes; I imagine most
sysadmins agree.
Reply to: