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

Re: sbin

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:42:10 +0800, lina wrote:
>>>> Is it safe to add /sbin into PATH?
>>> To you user env? If it's not an exposed system, I'd say yes.
>> It's even OK on an "exposed" system. Having "(/usr)/sbin" in PATH for
>> everyone is the default for RHEL, Fedora, and Ubuntu and, anyway, the
>> executables in "(/usr)/sbin" are all "x" for "other".
> Somebody over there thinks that they should all be combined. Not sure
> why, but the fact that the current separation is historically derived
> from circumstance, not design, seems to figure large in the arguments.

Yes, in the next version of Fedora, 16, "/bin/*", "/sbin/*", and
"/lib/*" are being moved into "/usr/bin/", "/usr/sbin/", and
"/usr/lib/". That's not quite the same thing. There's been talk of
following up in a future version with a move of "/usr/sbin/*" into
"/usr/bin/" but, AFAIK, the decision to implement this second
unification hasn't been taken yet.

Reply to: