Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote: > 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.
Which people does it confuse? > 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. They are installing packages for a command that has a manual page already? Look I really doubt that is happening. > I won't push this any further, but experience shows this change > really helps guide people into the BSD filesystem hierarchy > conventions. We do not include paths in SYNOPSIS, because it isn't important (and in some cases, it would be dangerous to do so)
