On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 02:22:43PM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 14:09, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > Certainly not. There is no point in sbin if it is i every users path. > > It is our believe that the distinction between sbin and bin is useful. > > Who is 'our' in this case. The FHS committee?
me and everybody who agrees with me ;) > My point was that if we can reasonably show that on a GNU/Hurd system > that most (say 90-95%?) of the commands in sbin would be reasonable for > a power user to use there is probably value in just having that in the > general users path. Either the programs are usable for the general user, then they should be in /bin. Or they are not and they should be in /sbin, and once you have that state there is no value in /sbin being in the general users path. There are two ways to look at this: The desire to add /sbin to the general users path just means that you made a mistake in locating the files in the first place. OTOH, having non-usable programs in the path is only adding another error on top of that. So you end up with files being in wrong places, a wrong configuration, and a lot of confusion. > You don't want namespace collisions between bin and sbin anyway, so > there shouldn't be too much of a worry. It's not like you're protecting > newbie's since I would expect them to not ever see the command line > anyway. Well, all this is true. It's also not part of the reason why putting /sbin into everybodies path is just wrong. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
