On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
> Now explain to me why we need to add another directory rather
> than just populate one directory more fully?
Well:
1. You shouldn't need to add another directory, the system should just
have it added to the PATH via the system profile if the system
intends ordinary users to have those commands available.
- all a user should need to do is include a standard system profile
to get the standard system PATH
- allows per-package PATH modifications to be delivered, PATH
addition per file, to some standard directory (pulled in by system
profile automatically)
2. While it's possible to combine binaries in many directories into one
namespace^WPATH, it is impossible for users to unsplit binaries from
the namespace if they're all delivered into one directory.
I'm curious why:
echo '. /etc/profile' > ~/.profile
is anymore difficult for users than:
echo 'export PATH="/usr/bin"' > ~/.profile
for sh? (Presume some user who has managed to bork his environment -
most users should have a system delivered environment).
I suspect the /real/ reason for /usr/bin advocacy is simply so as to
avoid continued, ongoing /usr/XYZ namespace discussions, but I still
have to read the ARC case Jim cited. /usr/bin avoids those, at the cost
of lumping /everyone/ with ginormous number of binaries in their PATH.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma,
Network Approachability, KISS. Sun Microsystems, Dublin, Ireland.
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/quagga tel: EMEA x19190 / +353 1 819 9190
