tab completion less useful now, due to sbin in path

[Les Mikesell]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 16:01 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 08:33 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:25:26AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
>>>> The proper time to voice objections to this would have been there, 6
>>>> weeks ago now.
>>> Well, as I thought the discussion had been left before that meeting, fixing
>>> the general problem of user-level commands in the wrong places was the
>>> feature and it was going to be solved properly. The feature is called "sbin
>>> sanity", and I'm 100% in support of that. The "ah, hell, just put everything
>>> in the path and call that sane" change came as a surprise to me.
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SbinSanity
>>
>> And under Scope it says: "Change the default PATH to
>> include /usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin for all users. Note that it must
>> come at the end of the path for normal users, or consolehelper will
>> break." According to the history, it's been there since at least May 24
>> 2008, when it was imported from MoinMoin. A period of ~5 months.
>>
>> If you're surprised by this, you simply aren't paying attention to the
>> feature process. I've seen many emails go out on fedora-announce about
>> the status of features, in which checking up on features you are
>> interested in is a single click away.
>>
>> Also notable, in the discussion section of the May 24 revision, since
>> moved to the Talk page:
>>
>> "Alternate approach: couldn't we just symlink commonly-used binaries
>> into /bin or /usr/bin?
>>
>> Yes, but this requires editing and rebuilding dozens of RPMs and
>> constant argument about which binaries deserve special treatment. Lots
>> more work for very little actual improvement."
>>
>> No one in this thread is making any point that hasn't already been
>> considered.
> Correct, because none of these "alternatives" is discussworthy. Both are
> equally broken.

What's broken about putting symlinks to the dozen or so programs that 
have common non-root usage into /usr/bin?  The symlinks could even be a 
separate package that people who didn't like the idea could remove. 
They don't even need to depend on the target package - if the target 
executable doesn't exist you aren't any worse off with the symlink than 
without.  Nothing would have to be rebuilt.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com