Re: traceroute in /usr/bin, not /usr/sbin
Craig Sanders writes:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 08:24:25AM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
>> The useful purpose is fixing a FHS non-compliance bug.
>
> a) that's a matter of subjective interpretation, not objective fact.
> b) it's not a *useful* purpose, it's an *aesthetic* purpose
Getting traceroute onto the default user path is useful, not
aesthetic. You may not have seen people failing to find it because of
its poorly-chosen location, but I have.
> on the one hand we have subjective interpretation that traceroute
> belongs in /usr/bin.
The FHS is perfectly clear, despite the attempts to claim otherwise.
> on the other hand, we have the objective fact that arbitrarily moving
> binaries from the location they've been in for years will cause
> breakage.
A solution, in the form of a link, has already been pointed out.
> if your priorities put aesthetics above breakage (i.e. form above
> function, image above substance) then your priorities are seriously
> screwed up.
In an earlier posting you rejected the idea of a symlink on the
grounds that it was "ugly". Who's putting aesthatics above
functionality now?
ttfn/rjk
Reply to: