On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).

That's not what the FHS states
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>. /bin is
for "Essential command binaries that need to be available in single user
mode; for all users (e.g., cat, ls, cp).", and /sbin is for "Essential
system binaries (e.g., init, route, ifup).", and similarly for /bin
and /sbin that resides in /usr, but with the added "Non-essential" bit.
The key, IMO, is that the ${prefix}/bin is meant for all users, where
${prefix}/sbin is not (restricted access).

Back to the question at hand... Now I am not opposed to (not that my
opinion makes a difference in this) symlinking the appropriate binaries
from ${prefix}/bin to ${prefix}/sbin for FHS compliance and support for
older things and have that provided as a separate package (thank you
Seth for reminding me .

I do have some concerns (in as much as it is an unknown to me) as to the
long term effects that would have, and how it would affect other distros
that use Fedora as a base (i.e. RHEL).


--Tim
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
/ Reichel's Law:
| A body on vacation tends to remain on vacation unless acted upon by |
an outside force. /
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

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

> [mailto:fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Timothy
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).
>
> That's not what the FHS states
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>. /bin is
> for "Essential command binaries that need to be available in
> single user
> mode; for all users (e.g., cat, ls, cp).", and /sbin is for "Essential
> system binaries (e.g., init, route, ifup).", and similarly for /bin
> and /sbin that resides in /usr, but with the added
> "Non-essential" bit.
> The key, IMO, is that the ${prefix}/bin is meant for all users, where
> ${prefix}/sbin is not (restricted access).

Exactly, and most binaries were statically built when you didnt have /usr mounted, but even then libc resided in /lib. But regardless, the FHS is not that old because it doesnt even mention the reason /sbin existed as Alan pointed out. I wouldn't go fully by what the FHS states vs the historical reasons.


>
> Back to the question at hand... Now I am not opposed to (not that my
> opinion makes a difference in this) symlinking the
> appropriate binaries
> from ${prefix}/bin to ${prefix}/sbin for FHS compliance and
> support for
> older things and have that provided as a separate package (thank you
> Seth for reminding me .
>
I would rather not go that route, just append /sbin /usr/sbin in $PATH at end and be done with it.

Shawn.

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

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:20:16AM -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).
>
> That's not what the FHS states

The FHS isn't a history document. It describes practice arising from the
old SunOS /sbin tradition.

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

On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:20 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).
>
> That's not what the FHS states
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>. /bin is
> for "Essential command binaries that need to be available in single user
> mode; for all users (e.g., cat, ls, cp).", and /sbin is for "Essential
> system binaries (e.g., init, route, ifup).", and similarly for /bin
> and /sbin that resides in /usr, but with the added "Non-essential" bit.
> The key, IMO, is that the ${prefix}/bin is meant for all users, where
> ${prefix}/sbin is not (restricted access).
> .( o ).

Does anyone else find the idea of a 'normal' user (i.e not sysadmin)
running single user mode without /usr mounted as an amusing concept?

I suppose there are some systems that run only in single user mode, but
whether any non-root users have ever logged in there would be suprising.
Even during the boot process before going multi-user, we are running as
UID 0, AFAIK.

David


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

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> said:
> > (Actually
> > I fail to see what horribly necessary commands are causing this to be a
> > big issue, but that's beside the point.)
>
> I usually add /usr/sbin:/sbin to my PATH for the following commands I
> sometimes/often use as a regular user (I can't change things but I can
> view current conditions/settings) by what package they come from:

But ordinary users don't need these commands. You are acting as an
administrator when you are using them. The information you get isn't
very useful unless you can switch to root if something is wrong.

Also, adding the directories to PATH by default will make the shell
completion less effective.

Just my -1.

> chkconfig:
> /sbin/chkconfig
>
> freeipmi:
> /usr/sbin/ipmiconsole
> /usr/sbin/ipmipower
>
> hardlink:
> /usr/sbin/hardlink
>
> iproute:
> /sbin/ip
>
> module-init-tools:
> /sbin/lsmod
> /sbin/modinfo
>
> net-tools:
> /sbin/arp
> /sbin/ifconfig
> /sbin/route
>
> ntp:
> /usr/sbin/ntpq
>
> pciutils:
> /sbin/lspci
>
> usbutils:
> /sbin/lsusb
>
> wireless-tools:
> /sbin/iwconfig
> /sbin/iwlist
>

--
Miroslav Lichvar

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

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> writes:

> But ordinary users don't need these commands. You are acting as an
> administrator when you are using them. The information you get isn't
> very useful unless you can switch to root if something is wrong.

They are essential when remote debugging over the phone. Telling users
to type /sbin/ is a pain over the phone, and so is remembering which
commands are in /sbin/ and which are in /usr/sbin/.


/Benny


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

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:17:44AM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > But ordinary users don't need these commands. You are acting as an
> > administrator when you are using them. The information you get isn't
> > very useful unless you can switch to root if something is wrong.
>
> They are essential when remote debugging over the phone. Telling users
> to type /sbin/ is a pain over the phone, and so is remembering which
> commands are in /sbin/ and which are in /usr/sbin/.

Again, it's not the user who needs the commands, it's you. I'd suggest
to add an alias like this to a bash startup file:

alias sbinpath="export PATH=$PATH:/usr/sbin:/sbin"

And the debugging will start with "type sbinpath, enter".

--
Miroslav Lichvar

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

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 22:47 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 11:40 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

Whatever purpose someone thought the s- versions might have ever served
flies out the window when the the administrator and the only user are
one and the same person who is just confused by sometimes having
commands work and sometimes not.

This proposal is in the same class of proposals proposing to abandon
"user accounts" and/or to use "root only".
No it is not. There are absolutely no security considerations *right now* for
whether a normal user has /*/sbin in their path or not.


Correct, security is not the point. The point is *usability*

It's in the same lane as
"Who needs root, gid/uids when I am the only user on a system?


Perhaps in the same lane, but you're talking about a difference of miles down
the road (and already driven over the cliff). To even compare these two is
silly IMO; one creates enormous security breach potential, the other has zero
security impact.


This has nothing
whatsoever to do with access permission or authorization for actions those
binaries may attempt to make. Changing to root only definitely does.

That's not my rationale.

IMO, this proposal is yet the n-th manifestation of Fedora going down
the drain - Frankly speaking, to me this proposal is such kind of
absurd, I can only turn away in disgust.


I can't possibly see why... although some people have felt that way about lots
of usability improvements over the years. What argument is there that its
necessary to stick to the 'good old way' here? The best I've seen in the thread
is just increasing bash autocomplete clutter, which frankly, is grasping for
something/anything to complain about.


--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0x8300BF29 fingerprint 071D FFE0 4CBC 13FC 7DEB 5BD5 5F89 8E1B 8300 BF29
revoked key 0xC99B1DF3 no longer used
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----

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

On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 02:11 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
>
> I can't possibly see why... although some people have felt that way about lots
> of usability improvements over the years. What argument is there that its
> necessary to stick to the 'good old way' here? The best I've seen in the thread
> is just increasing bash autocomplete clutter, which frankly, is grasping for
> something/anything to complain about.

Not to mention that there are plenty of more... popular distributions
out there that already setup the path in this way. Fedora/RH is just a
holdout because nobody has cared to step up and say "We're changing
this."

--
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

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> If I can add on the topic, on debian there has never been a (noticeable)
> difference between su and su -, and ip addr or ifconfig works as a user
> without having to prepend /sbin or /usr/sbin IIRC
>
> I find often quite annoying that it does not work the same in Fedora/Red
> Hat distributions, and never seen anything break because of that.

+1

Debian and Slackware have got this right. This "feature" has annoyed the
shit out of me ever since I started using Red Hat, with version 5.2.

Of course being so long ago, I just learned to accept it and forgot
about it. Now that we're a "community distribution", can we please fix
this now?

> Anyway it should be taken in consideration whether current Fedora users
> would be annoyed by the change. IMO it should not cause any problem of
> sort, as it does not introduce obstacles and does not influence (I
> think) how stuff works now. It just makes things smoother, but that's
> taste.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list