Directory structures in the future and other things I want.

[Pádraig Brady]

David Mansfield wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 19:49 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
>>> nonessential command binaries, /sbin and /usr/sbin are for system
>>> binaries.  I personally am a fan of the organization, but +1 to
>>> the adding /sbin:/usr/sbin to everyone's path.
>> If so it has to go at the end - several tools install /sbin and non /sbin
>> versions of the same name.
>>
> 
> Probably it should be the same as what root gets, or what you get with
> 'su -' which is /sbin ahead of /bin and /usr/sbin ahead of /usr/bin.
> Otherwise won't it still be confusing if 'su' and 'su -' work
> differently?

I'm not sure. There is for an against this argument.
I tend to side with Alan and for users put /sbin/ at the end.
One of the main "advantages" of having separate binary dirs
in the first place, is the possibility of overriding names based on $PATH

In practice I don't think this will matter as there
doesn't seem to be significant clashes currently.

I did a quick scan with FSlint¹ and on ubuntu 7.10 there are no name clashes.
On Fedora 8 there were no clashes between user and root paths either.
I did notice the oddity that /sbin/ symlinks the the lvm tools
(lvm, pvscan, vgscan, vgchange) to the statically linked binary,
whereas /usr/sbin/ links to the normal binary.

¹ http://www.pixelbeat.org/fslint/