[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /etc/profile should include sbin in PATH

Ben Collins wrote:
> > I certainly agree that there are numerous programs in *sbin that
> > according to that definition should reside in *bin.
> Just because a user will run them does not mean they are designed for
> normal users. For instance most of these will be run _as_ a normal user,
> but usually _by_ the admin.

That *that* person should put *sbin in his PATH, not system-wide.  If you do
that, there is according to FHS no reason to have a separate *sbin and *bin
(at least that's the conclusion I draw from it).

> I think you are confusing "system administrator" with "root". A system
> admin can and will (if he is smart) do most system maintainence as
> non-root.

Huh?  I'm only quoting FHS. Which we seem to try to follow, according to the
Policy every Debian maintainer has to obeye (why bother having Policy
otherwise). FHS clearly sais that programs that are being run by ordinary
users should be in *bin, not in *sbin. So the fix to the problem is IMHO not
that *sbin is put in PATH, but that traceroute et al are moved.

If you don't agree with the paragraph from FHS I quoted... well that's
another thing. I'm only saying that Policy demands something that apparently
quite some people don't agree with. So maybe either Policy or the FHS should
be fixed.

I won't rule out the other possibility: me misreading FHS or Debian Policy.
In that case I'd like to know what exactly I am misreading. I don't think
I'm confusing "system administrator" with "root".


Reply to: