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

Re: /etc/profile should include sbin in PATH

Craig Sanders wrote:
> ok, the symlinks could be in the package but that would constitute
> a violation of the FHS.

What chapter and verse?

> > 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.

"users should not have to place any of the sbin directories in their path"
	-- FHS

I never said symlinks in /usr/local/bin violated the FHS.

> 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

The point is to use the symlinks as a transition mechanism.

> > 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).

"each package must maintain a symlink /usr/doc/<package>' that points to
the new location of its documentation in `/usr/share/doc/<package>'"
	-- Debian policy

> i didn't see any facts in what you wrote. i saw several errors of fact

You have not disproven a single one of my facts.

> and opinionated over-reaction.

Please don't drag personal matters into this.

see shy jo

Reply to: