On 08/02/18 22:33, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > here is a link to an old, but brief discussion about this. > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/2fc1f62c7cf225787fe52f4dace7368c > > I think we have talked about this several other times, but not done > anything about it. > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:17:59PM +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> >> On 08/02/18 22:13, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:55:02PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>>> However, there are plenty of examples of commands that normal users >>>> may run from sbin. Moving these commands often causes problems for >>>> packages that either hard code absolute paths, or detect paths at >>>> build time. I think it would be less disruptive to add sbin to PATH >>>> than it would be to try and "fix" all the packages that install >>>> commands in the wrong place. >>> There are no reasons to remove the *sbin directories from PATH; I know >>> of no other distros that do this. >>> >>> William >>> >> Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean you are essentially relying on >> file system features/permissions and security settings to enforce >> correct use of system tools?! Or is this just to make sudo/etc commands >> 'more convenient' ?! > The basic problem is that what goes in *bin vs *sbin is quite arbitrary > and the best way to fix it is to make all of the *bin and *sbin > directories accessible to all users. > > You can't rely on a path to separate system-only programs from > programs that users might want to run, and some programs can be run by > users to look around but not change things. > > Here is one non-gentoo source discussing this. > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > Even if we don't adopt the usr merge in Gentoo Linux as default, removing > *sbin > from the path doesn't make sense. > > William > Thank you William, and also rich for your explanations! I do see where you're coming from now.
Michael.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
