Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Shawn H Corey]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day"  wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> 
> > On 2018-03-14 05:22 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > obviously, it's not a big deal since both /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
> > > are part of the normal search path for even regular users,
> >
> > Only on an improperly configured system.  /sbin and /usr/sbin should
> > not be in $PATH for a regular user.
> 
>   i disagree ... there are all sorts of utilities in /usr/sbin that
> regular users might find useful, and there can't be any security
> issues with that since users could always just add that to their PATH
> in their .bash_profile.
> 
> rday
> ___
> Linux mailing list
> Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
> http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Modern computers are either a PC, which has only one user that needs
to maintain the system, or a server, which should not be accessible by
regular users.


-- 
Don't stop where the ink does.

Shawn H Corey
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stephen M. Webb wrote:

> On 2018-03-14 05:22 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > obviously, it's not a big deal since both /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are
> > part of the normal search path for even regular users,
>
> Only on an improperly configured system.  /sbin and /usr/sbin should
> not be in $PATH for a regular user.

  i disagree ... there are all sorts of utilities in /usr/sbin that
regular users might find useful, and there can't be any security
issues with that since users could always just add that to their PATH
in their .bash_profile.

rday
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Stephen M. Webb]

On 2018-03-14 05:22 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> obviously, it's not a big deal since both /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are
> part of the normal search path for even regular users, 

Only on an improperly configured system.  /sbin and /usr/sbin should not be in 
$PATH for a regular user.

-- 
Stephen M. Webb  
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Brett Delmage]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Brett Delmage wrote:


WHat does file ../sbin/* show on other systems?


I meant: file /sbin/*
file /usr/sbin/*

Any static linking?
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Brett Delmage]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Robert P. J. Day wrote:


 more nitpicky pedantry, but i was summarizing some handy system H/W
utilities and noticed that, while lsusb and lspci philosophically do
the same thing (that is, display system info), on my fedora system,
they are installed differently:

 $ type lsusb
 lsusb is /usr/bin/lsusb
 $ type lspci
 lspci is /usr/sbin/lspci



/sbin/* executables were historically statically linked, accessible 
earlier in the system starup process before shared libs were possibly 
mounted or available.


Hmm. Running "file" on my /sbin/*, /usr/sbin/* on 16.04 only shows 
dynamically linked utilities. Years ago, I remember seeing statically 
linked files in these dirs.


Presumably, at least modern releases are complex enough that booting to a 
normal runtime config now requires so much (blame systemd? ;-) or maybe 
just md, raid, lvm, crypto fs) that it's not practical or useful to build 
static execs that could be used to boot to a lesser (recovery) system 
state? Dunno.


I can see lspci being of more 'utility' in debugging a system in recovery 
mode than lsusb, which might explain the different (historical?) 
placements.


Today it could just be that /sbin exec should be available on the first 
part of system initialization? But no longer real concern given boot disk 
sizes of GBs?


Anyway, not an official FHS/LSC reason, just my observation.

WHat does file ../sbin/* show on other systems?

Brett


___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Rick Leir]

Robert
Thanks for the 'nitpicky pedantry', I generally learn from these threads.

This is from distant memory. Sbin means system binaries, implying that they are 
for sysadmins not for (l)users. The sysadmin can explore sbin utilities more 
easily when they are in a separate directory. Also, when there is a recovery 
shell environment with limited resources, the sbin utilities or a subset of 
them can be provided (I am not clear on this, comments are welcome). Lsusb 
seems to be more of a desktop user utility, while Lspci seems to be more of a 
sysadmin's tool.

Fedora is a playground for the RedHat devs, and it can seem a bit loose. Things 
get more organized when the features are moved to the RedHat distro. I like 
Fedora at home, and I feel .. what is the word .. when using Redhat at work. 
Cheers -- Rick

On March 14, 2018 5:22:14 AM EDT, "Robert P. J. Day"  
wrote:
>
>  more nitpicky pedantry, but i was summarizing some handy system H/W
>utilities and noticed that, while lsusb and lspci philosophically do
>the same thing (that is, display system info), on my fedora system,
>they are installed differently:
>
>  $ type lsusb
>  lsusb is /usr/bin/lsusb
>  $ type lspci
>  lspci is /usr/sbin/lspci
>  $
>
>obviously, it's not a big deal since both /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are
>part of the normal search path for even regular users, but i was
>reminded of the excruciating detail of the filesystem hierarchy
>standard and was wondering if there was anything in the recent FHS
>3.0:
>
>  http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html
>
>that had anything to say about a distinction between those two
>directories. there's nothing noticeably different between those two
>commands in terms of basic properties:
>
>  $ ls -l /usr/bin/lsusb
>  -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 208720 Dec  3 22:09 /usr/bin/lsusb
>  $ ls -l /usr/sbin/lspci
>  -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 83704 Aug  4  2017 /usr/sbin/lspci
>  $
>
>that suggests one is more of a "system" utility than the other. so is
>this just arbitrary, or is there anything in the FHS that addresses
>this sort of thing?
>
>rday
>___
>Linux mailing list
>Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
>http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

-- 
Sorry for being brief. Alternate email is rickleir at yahoo dot com 
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux

[OCLUG-Tech] is there a FHS/LSB rationale for installing in /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  more nitpicky pedantry, but i was summarizing some handy system H/W
utilities and noticed that, while lsusb and lspci philosophically do
the same thing (that is, display system info), on my fedora system,
they are installed differently:

  $ type lsusb
  lsusb is /usr/bin/lsusb
  $ type lspci
  lspci is /usr/sbin/lspci
  $

obviously, it's not a big deal since both /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are
part of the normal search path for even regular users, but i was
reminded of the excruciating detail of the filesystem hierarchy
standard and was wondering if there was anything in the recent FHS
3.0:

  http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html

that had anything to say about a distinction between those two
directories. there's nothing noticeably different between those two
commands in terms of basic properties:

  $ ls -l /usr/bin/lsusb
  -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 208720 Dec  3 22:09 /usr/bin/lsusb
  $ ls -l /usr/sbin/lspci
  -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 83704 Aug  4  2017 /usr/sbin/lspci
  $

that suggests one is more of a "system" utility than the other. so is
this just arbitrary, or is there anything in the FHS that addresses
this sort of thing?

rday
___
Linux mailing list
Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux