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

Re: Resolving policy and practice wrt sbin directories (traceroute)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:12:53PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>  > traceroute is where it is because that's where it is on every other
>  > UNIX
>  $ ls -l /usr/etc/traceroute 
>  -r-sr-xr-x    1 root     sys        22388 Jun  2  2000 /usr/etc/traceroute
>  $ ls -l /usr/contrib/bin/traceroute
>  -r-sr-xr-x   1 root       bin          32768 Aug 27  1998 /usr/contrib/bin/traceroute
>  that argument is not what I'd call solid.  

The maintainer considers it solid enough. Guess whose opinion counts.

Curiously, I don't think anyone's yet given an example of a Unix where
traceroute's actually in /usr/bin. No doubt someone'll create a new
"TracerouteInUsrBinLinux" shortly.

But let me rephrase anyway: traceroute's in /usr/sbin because that's where
it is in a majority of other Unices, a majority of other Linux distributions
and where it's always been in Debian. Moving it would break numerous scripts,
for a benefit which can easily be obtained by adding a symlink locally, or
changing your PATH.

This isn't a policy issue; it's a maintainer's discretion issue.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpankt4QWJHn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: