In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> yo
u write:
>
> I believe this bug to be the same as the bug I submitted #107150 which is
> currently before the technical-committee (package tech-ctte).
Yes, thanks.
The FHS is clear (and I'm clarifying it AGAIN in case there is still
debate): setuid traceroute belongs /usr/bin.
Under FHS 2.2, it's clear that a symlink (either way) would suffice to
be compliant. It's nicer to move it, but that's a "how much will this
break" question.
Notes:
o Whether the Debian policy should mandate FHS compliance with
only one qualifier (conflicts with rest of Policy) is an
interesting question, but does not effect the fact that it does.
o Whether the "root-only commands" specification is an
arbitrary choice or not is an interesting question, but not
relevant to deciding compliance.
o Whether */sbin is a good idea is also an interesting
question, but not relevant to deciding compliance.
o If traceroute were not setuid (and hence only usable by
root), /usr/sbin WOULD be the correct path.
o Whether ifconfig, route and sendmail belong in */sbin is an
interesting question, but not relevant to deciding
compliance of the traceroute package.
o As they are currently explicitly mentioned as being
in */sbin, they are in compliance.
o I would love to see a proposal for FHS 2.3 to move
these.
o Whether mk*fs* and fsck* belong in /sbin is an interesting
question, but not relevent to deciding the compliance of the
traceroute package.
o While both are possibly useful to users for loopback
files, I believe it's a line call.
Please forward any questions,
Rusty.
FHS 2.2 Editor.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
