As mentioned in a private mail to Klaus: I tend to think /usr(/local)/sbin and manual page section 8 would be more appropriate for vdr than /usr(/local)/bin and section 1. Even though "sbin" and section 8 is generally for "system administration commands", which vdr clearly is not, in my opinion vdr is even less a "user command" which "bin" and section 1 more or less implies. No need to clutter normal users' PATH with executables they aren't really supposed to run. Additionally, the vast majority of daemon-like programs are installed to sbin directories by all distributions I'm aware of. So, what do people think, would something like the attached patch be a good idea? It might break some setups, so it clearly needs to be done during a development cycle if ever. While sort of cosmetic, I think this would be a good thing, and in the series of making vdr feel "more mature" like someone mentioned in a recent "don't run as root" thread. Obviously, after applying the patch, vdr.1 should be renamed to vdr.8. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vdr-sbin.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2158 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/vdr/attachments/20060119/314283f3/vdr-sbin.bin
