Re: /etc/profile should include sbin in PATH
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 04:55:47PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Craig Sanders:
> > Adding the sbin directories to the PATH is the minimal change with no
> > undesirable side-effects.
> There is one undesirable side-effect: I would get lots of programs in
> my PATH (and hence completing on <tab>) that are of no use to me as a
> normal user, ever.
on my system:
# ls -1 /sbin /usr/sbin | wc -l
# ls -1 /bin /usr/bin | wc -l
Display all 3661 possibilities? (y or n)
sbin binaries account for 487 out of 3661 executables in the path.
big deal. if this is a problem then your system is slow enough to be
exhibiting numerous other, more significant and more annoying delays.
> > It is the correct fix for the problem.
> I do not agree.
it beats moving binaries from where they have been for years.
personally, i don't care whether the PATH is changed or not. if any
change is made then that is what should be done, but it isn't vital
or essential as it only takes a few seconds to edit /etc/profile when
building a new system (and i do that anyway to add my standard aliases
and to turn on colourised ls, lesspipe, and other useful things).
however, i do object very strongly to moving binaries like traceroute,
ldconfig, ifconfig, lsmod and/or others from sbin to bin directories.
doing that WILL break many local scripts on many systems. the minimal
benefits do not justify the risks.