Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Saturday 15 September 2007, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: generally yes ... however, i dont know of any distro who puts `ip` in /bin and considering its purpose in life (configuring the interfaces), putting it in /sbin makes sense to me Debian sid (unstable): # which ip /bin/ip # ls -l /bin/ip -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 164568 Jun 10 21:39 /bin/ip* # ip -V ip utility, iproute2-ss070313 blah, they changed the defaults ... iproute2 upstream defaults to /sbin for ip considering ip/ifconfig do the same thing, i think they should be in the same dir in busybox or we can just drop the whole path charade from busybox completely ... then there isnt a problem of /bin vs /sbin vs /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Tuesday 11 September 2007, Denys Vlasenko wrote: On Tuesday 11 September 2007 05:01, Paul Fox wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? no, his problem is that other apps refer to ip via its full path. $PATH isn't always the answer. Which is kind of negates the reason why we have PATH in the first place. Other apps should be fixed to not use full paths. generally yes ... however, i dont know of any distro who puts `ip` in /bin and considering its purpose in life (configuring the interfaces), putting it in /sbin makes sense to me -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Monday 10 September 2007 21:40, Natanael Copa wrote: Hi, Is it big deal to move /bin/ip to /sbin/ip? My problem is this: I use busybox for my distro with vserver support. The vserver package is built on a standard gentoo uclibc. I suspect the util-vserver build scripts check what is the location for various programs, inclusive iproute2. The location is stored in a /usr/lib/util-vserver/util-vserver-vars file. So why do I just not change this file in my util-vserver package? Well, in some installations the busybox ip will be enough, in others the user will install the original iproute2. Here comes the problems, specially since everything is unapcked from a package to a tmpfs during boot. The tools only make sure /etc survive reboots. the rest is extracted from cdrom. It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) Sure, feel free to submit a patch. But note the following: It makes things even more easy when you do mv /sbin/* /bin rm -fr /sbin ln -s /bin /sbin I did exactly that (and similarly symlinked /usr/sbin to /usr/bin) and am happy ever since. Ask yourself: what is so secret in /sbin that we don't allow users to even see? Lemme see... for example, sfdisk is there. Does anybody seriously think that unprivileged user cannot build his own sfdisk binary from publicly accessible source? and then run it? And then happily receive EPERM when it tries to read raw /dev/hda? Making users see these secret binaries is not dangerous, allowing users to read them isn't dangerous either. *Only* running them under root is dangerous, and your users cannot do that. Unless you have stray suid bit on one of those apps, that is. Tht is easy to fix. IOW: having separate, hidden from users /sbin is an excellent Unix way of feeling additional PITA for no apparent gain. -- vda ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 05:01, Paul Fox wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? no, his problem is that other apps refer to ip via its full path. $PATH isn't always the answer. Which is kind of negates the reason why we have PATH in the first place. Other apps should be fixed to not use full paths. -- vda ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 05:01, Paul Fox wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? no, his problem is that other apps refer to ip via its full path. $PATH isn't always the answer. Which is kind of negates the reason why we have PATH in the first place. Other apps should be fixed to not use full paths. sorry. when i said $PATH isn't always the answer, i meant, sometimes just using $PATH won't solve your problem. if you don't control the app, and it contains a hard-coded path, then $PATH won't help. paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 00:01 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? no, his problem is that other apps refer to ip via its full path. $PATH isn't always the answer. The source of the problem is IMHO that the original application is next to everywhere somewhere else so having ip in /bin might be considered bug. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 15:51 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:11 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: [...] sorry. when i said $PATH isn't always the answer, i meant, sometimes just using $PATH won't solve your problem. if you don't control the app, and it contains a hard-coded path, then $PATH won't help. No, then you put a (so-called compatibility) sym-link in place (and not move a binary just because of one broken app which hardcodes paths and doesn't make it configurable). Thats how i solved it in this specific case. Thanks for all comments. -nc Bernd ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
Hi, Is it big deal to move /bin/ip to /sbin/ip? My problem is this: I use busybox for my distro with vserver support. The vserver package is built on a standard gentoo uclibc. I suspect the util-vserver build scripts check what is the location for various programs, inclusive iproute2. The location is stored in a /usr/lib/util-vserver/util-vserver-vars file. So why do I just not change this file in my util-vserver package? Well, in some installations the busybox ip will be enough, in others the user will install the original iproute2. Here comes the problems, specially since everything is unapcked from a package to a tmpfs during boot. The tools only make sure /etc survive reboots. the rest is extracted from cdrom. It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) -nc ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: moving /bin/ip to /sbin/ip?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: It would be a lot easier for me to have the ip application in the same place as the original iproute2. In fact it makes things alot more easy to have the busybox applications in the same place as the original apps. (not first time i meet this kind of problems) $PATH? no, his problem is that other apps refer to ip via its full path. $PATH isn't always the answer. while i have no objection to having busybox put things in their standard places, i'd also point out that it's easy to fix this problem, via an early init.d script -- just move the ip app, or create a new link to it. paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
