Re: traceroute in /usr/bin, not /usr/sbin
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> The easiest argument to this would be: "FHS does not define administration
> tools this way, so if we do it that way, we're not FHS-compliant".
>
> Correct. But while it's a good thing to follow standards, no single
> standard should be looked at as the holy bible. In this particular case,
> we'd be following the definition for a *software category* as defined by a
> *filesystem standard*. A lousy definition, IMHO:
>
> 'Deciding what things go into "sbin" directories is simple: if a normal
> (not a system adminstrator) user will ever run it directly, then it must
> be placed in one of the "bin" directories. [...]'
>
> Why do I find this a lousy definition? Let me give you another example:
>
> 'Deciding whether an eating utensil is a Chinese eating utensil is
> simple: if a non Chinese person will ever use it, then it is not a Chinese
> eating utensil'...
>
> I doubt it's that simple. Chop-sticks are Chinese utensils; the fact that
> I (sometimes) use them, does not change that. ifconfig is an
> administration tool; the fact that users may use it from time to time,
> does not change that.
>
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.
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.
Reply to: