Re: /etc/profile should include sbin in PATH
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:16:14PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i guess you mean "make /sbin/ifconfig a symlink to /bin/ifconfig", and
> > do the same for several other binaries...what would be the point of
> > that? it would be better to leave things as they are than to have to
> > manually make all those symlinks on dozens of systems.
>
> Manually? In case you arn't aware, symlinks can be present in .deb packages.
> Please justify that remark. You have only stated an opinion.
ok, the symlinks could be in the package but that would constitute
a violation of the FHS. so we can have manually created symlinks
(which would be OK because a system admin can do whatever they like to
their own systems regardless of what the FHS says), or we could have
entrenched a particularly ugly and offensive violation of the FHS.
neither of these are acceptable side-effects from the solution to a
miniscule original "problem" (i.e. that users have to edit their PATH
or specify the full pathname to traceroute and other binæries). a bad
solution is far worse than no solution at all...the correct solution is
to either ignore the problem because it's not particularly important
or to fix it properly by changing the default PATH to include the sbin
directories.
> Current situation: People are forced to make local workawounds like symlinks
> in /usr/local/bin or PATH modifications that violate the
> FHS. We have evidence on this thread that numerous people
> are making these types of workarounds.
you are over-reacting. neither symlinks in /usr/local/bin nor having
the sbin directories in the PATH are FHS violations. The fact that
/sbin and /usr/sbin are NOT in debian's PATH by default is an historical
accident, not something which is mandated by FHS.
> Proposed solution: Adding 5 or 10 symlinks *automatically*, to a system that
> already has thousands of symlinks in it;
how ugly!
what's the point of having a /sbin or /usr/sbin directory if symlinks
are going to be used to put binaries in /bin and /usr/bin as well - may
as well go the whole way and just make /sbin -> /bin and /usr/sbin ->
/usr/bin
also, what you are proposing WOULD be a violation of the FHS - what's
the point of having a standard if ugliness like this is allowed to creep
in and mess up the standard's clarity.
> that in fact has
> a minimum of 1 symlink per package that follows policy.
huh? since when are any symlinks required by policy? there are policies
defining where and how symlinks may be used, and where and how they
should be used, but no policy rule says that every package MUST have
certain symlink(s).
> Those are facts. Please show me some facts to back up your argument.
i didn't see any facts in what you wrote. i saw several errors of fact
and opinionated over-reaction.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: