On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:49:21PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:42:56PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Which purpose? Having to put /sbin for a lot of programs like parted > > > > and traceroute? Or just for those handful of programs left only usable > > > > for a system administrator? > > > > > > Have you read the coding standards? > > > > Yes, but I can't find a rationale for the /sbin directory. > > Maybe there isn't a good one. (It seems to exist (in the FHS, at > any rate) so that some commands will be out of the way for normal > users. Given the number of programs on a modern system, though, any > command the user doesn't already know about is out of the way, in the > sense that the user will only find it by chance.)
You mean they have to do "ls /sbin" or have to put sbin in there PATH manually? Really, I don't think it's a good argument. Why do you want to hide the binaries? > That said, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of /sbin. > I'm operating with it as given that the GNU standards and the FHS both > define sbin as a directory for commands not needed by normal users. > If so, then some of the commands normally found in sbin directories on > non-GNU/Hurd systems belong in bin directories on GNU/Hurd, because > the unprivileged user is able and encouraged to use them under normal > system conditions. I think the whole /sbin directory is old unix-craft like /usr. If you move all binaries which can be useful as a normal user to /bin you don't have much left. AFAICS both the FHS and the GCS allow symlinking /sbin to /bin. Does anybody see a reason for not doing so? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg01852/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature