On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 20:51 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > If we work from a setup where */sbin are not in the default PATH, we only have > to worry about existing full paths to executables we think should be in PATH > in order to not cause regressions, most likely by providing compatibility > symlinks or wrappers. This way, work done results in incremental > improvements. We already _had_ this discussion, just providing a few symlinks from sbin to bin isn't a good solution. Please read the thread from May. > This is a problem because what we want to > achieve is PATH which is kept clean of things that are not useful to have > there Again, read the thread from May, deciding which things only "normal" people want in the path to keep it "clean" is very non-trivial. Apparently Matthew doesn't want firstboot in his path, that's nice ... but what about if someone else does want it, do we start voting, for each binary? If we are going to decide that Fedora can't even manage to change the PATH to include sbin¹ without 100 people painting the bikeshed different colours, so be it ... but please, please, please, don't let everyone paint the thing for the next N years. ¹ And, yes, I've always hacked /etc/profile on every box I've used to make sbin be part of the path, I'm obviously far from alone, but meh. -- James Antill <james.antill@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
