Re: Is membership in staff supposed to imply root access?
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Rob Browning wrote:
> It looks like our installs set up /usr/local/bin to be group staff and
> writable by staff, and place /usr/local/(s)bin before /usr/(s)bin in
> root's PATH.
> I was a little surprised because I thought we used to exclude the
> /usr/local directories from root's path by default, but perhaps we
> changed our policies or perhaps my memory is mistaken.
We have had /usr/local directories in the PATH for root at least since 1995
(by looking at the "base" package version 1.1.0-13).
> Also, I wonder if our handling of /usr/local isn't a bit inconsistent
> since it doesn't look like we include /usr/local/lib in the ld.so
Yes, I wonder the same.