Theo de Raadt writes: > Disagree on this. > > Those programs are intentionally not in the path, since you don't > run them by hand.
That's what I was getting at. It's not clear they are 'libexec's. That's what confuses people. I just thought this might be a way to make it clear(er) that you don't run these directly, but that they are invoked by other things. I.e. it's easy to explain the concept of /usr/libexec to people once, so they recognize it when they see the path spelled out. But when we're bringing in people from Linux, their first reaction upon not finding the documented command is to start installing packages from hell to breakfast until something works. From an indoctrination standpoint, there's a lot less pain (and cleanup work) if they know right away that /usr/libexec/foo(8) is not something you run from the shell. I won't push this any further, but experience shows this change really helps guide people into the BSD filesystem hierarchy conventions. --lyndon
