On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:05 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> So in your estimation, LSB compliance isn't worth keeping?

We're not necessarily talking about breaking LSB compliance. LSB just
says that you have to be able to /find/ those things in those locations,
not that they have to be the real file, or that the file can't live
somewhere else.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Well, if you did a ldd on a unix box you'd notice binaries in /sbin were staticly built.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com
> [mailto:fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Bill Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Subject: Re: few ideas how to make fedora better as a desktop
>
>
> On 27/03/2008, Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course, if you can find me an example of dynamic
> linking from the
> > time when "sbin" came into existence (other than on VMS)
> let me know
>
> Actually, scratch that, because I'm almost certainly wrong; the /sbin
> name came later. It's nothing to do with "static" though.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:05 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Shawn Starr <sstarr@platform.com>
> wrote:
> Well, you might know the history, but A lot of newcomers to
> Linux don't. It's nice and dandy to change things and I fully
> agree that we shouldn't be beholden to the FHS structure.
>
> So in your estimation, LSB compliance isn't worth keeping?
>

Oh cmon - that's a false dichotomy.

it's not one or the other.

You can not be beholden to the fhs and maintain lsb compliance with a
small set of symlinks.

c'mon jeff. You know better than that.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> >
> > There is also a similar case for /usr/bin vs /bin (e.g. some OSs
> > traditionally had very stripped down versions of a few command in
> > /sbin or /bin, then fuller ones in /usr/bin - trivial example would be
> > "vi" of course).
> >
>
> This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).

Urban legend. The "s" in /sbin stands for "system":

from "info standards" (aka GNU standards):

`sbindir'
The directory for installing executable programs that can be run
from the shell, but are only generally useful to system
administrators. This should normally be `/usr/local/sbin', but
write it as `$(exec_prefix)/sbin'. (If you are using Autoconf,
write it as `@sbindir@'.)

See also:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES



It's only the fact that many "system administrator executables" need to
be statically linked which had caused people to believe the "s" would
stand for static.


> We needed this back when live CDs didn't exist, or if you somehow
> foobared your GNU libc you had /sbin/sln (static link) to fix a
> system, now a days you pop in a CD, chroot to the saddened Linux
> system and repair it easily. You used /sbin as your emergency kit and
> superuser tools.
The last part of your sentence is the key. /sbin and /usr/sbin exist to
keep tools out of ordinary users' PATH.

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 08:45 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
>
> 2008/3/26 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:
> "root" is a legacy concept. Either the local user is also the admin, or
> the admin is a site wide admin where local root accounts are just jokes
> and instead things are done as sudo, or through config management
> systems.
>
> I'm still dropping to root on systems that I'm not sitting in front of when I need to troubleshoot hardware. We'd have to make sure that all the devices which get dynamically created get the correct permissions such that an admin group such as 'wheel' can make use of them by default.
>
>

I don't disagree.

--
Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com)
Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list

2008/3/27 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:

We're not necessarily talking about breaking LSB compliance. *
I'm not sure that shawn here is saying that.* So I wanted shawn's clarification as to shawn's thoughts on the matter of the importance of lsb compliance in shawn's vision of what shawn would think is optimal progress. Though if you want to speak for him, let me know, and I'll set the
filters accordingly to just rename all his post so that they look like
they are coming from you.* We are in fact beholden to the FHS structure to some extent..even if we symlink or hardlink directories or files so they actually live somewhere else.* Unless we are prepared to drop LSB compliance we have to pay lipservice to the FHS.


-jef


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Ralf Corsepius wrote:


The last part of your sentence is the key. /sbin and /usr/sbin exist to
keep tools out of ordinary users' PATH.



Which made sense when every machine was expected to have an
administrator to do the complicated stuff for you, but fedora doesn't
ship one.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

I'm not
advocating anything that would break things. But I believe the LSB is failing
because its not keeping up with Linux's rapid changes. So, while I think the LSB
is a nice idea, It's more marketing to me than anything.
*
Shawn.

-----Original Message-----
From:
fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Spaleta
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:17 PM
To:
Development discussions related to Fedora
Subject: Re: few ideas how
to make fedora better as a desktop




2008/3/27 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:

We're
not necessarily talking about breaking LSB compliance. *

I'm not sure that shawn here is saying that.* So I wanted
shawn's clarification as to shawn's thoughts on the matter of the importance
of lsb compliance in shawn's vision of what shawn would think is optimal
progress. Though if you want to speak for him, let me know, and I'll set the
filters accordingly to just rename all his post so that they look like they
are coming from you.* We are in fact beholden to the FHS structure to
some extent..even if we symlink or hardlink directories or files so they
actually live somewhere else.* Unless we are prepared to drop LSB
compliance we have to pay lipservice to the FHS.

-jef



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

Which made sense when every machine was expected to have an

administrator to do the complicated stuff for you, but fedora doesn't

ship one.


I think Jesse has hit on the vision in another post.* We need to decide on what an 'administrator' role looks like in a fedora system for the use cases we care about and then fix or bits to conform to that vision.* What exactly to do about the paths will follow naturally from that.


-jef


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > The last part of your sentence is the key. /sbin and /usr/sbin exist to
> > keep tools out of ordinary users' PATH.
> >
>
> Which made sense when every machine was expected to have an
> administrator to do the complicated stuff for you, but fedora doesn't
> ship one.
>

Or maybe it existed to keep path search times down for users who didn't
need those extra programs there...

Of course, we now have 3123 programs in /usr/bin on my F8 system.

David


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list