Bug#36151: Clearing out old policy proposals
On 23-Jun-01, 17:36 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:08:10AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 21-Jun-01, 17:33 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Scripts which use programs in a directory other than /usr/bin and
> > > /bin (and /usr/bin/X11?) should append that directory to the PATH
> > I'd really like to see the list expanded to include /sbin and /usr/sbin
> > as well. My rationale is that init.d scripts are intended (and mostly
> Please see the original proposal: the problem was precisely that there
> were situations where these directories were not in the PATH and this
> broke the scripts.
Yes, and those situations are caused by the sysadmin changing the
default path setups and removing /sbin and /usr/sbin from the default
root user path i.e. they have gone out of their way to break it. We
should not write policy to allow people to screw up their systems. If
we are going to accommodate people who remove /sbin and /usr/sbin, why
shouldn't we accommodate those who remove /usr/bin and /bin as well?
The correct response to a bug report that an init.d script doesn't run
with /sbin:/usr/sbin in the caller's path is "Why are you running it
from a user account?" When the reporter says "I'm not, I'm logged in as
root" the reply is "Then put your path back the way it belongs".
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>