Incorrect order of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in path

[Reindl Harald]

Am 05.05.2014 21:45, schrieb Kay Sievers:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>> And calling /usr/libexec "Fedora-only" is of course kind of
>> funny.
> 
> "libexec" is Fedora-only, no other major distro used it, not even LSB
> allowed it.

you systemd-guys are really funny - /run was okay and FHS did
not matter because it don't get often enough updates and was in
your way, libexec is not OK because you don't like itand prefer
to fix things which ain't broken - wheter it's part of a proposed
FHS update and from where it comes

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-December/175530.html
>> It's worth knowing the history here. Libexec isn't completely out of the
>> blue -- it comes from GNU. For whatever reason, FHS was resistant to
>> accepting libexec (but somewhat ironically!) the BSDs picked it up, and as I
>> understand it, liked it so much that it's one of the reasons the FHS failed
>> to become more than a Linux standard.

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel/21616
>> I could have sworn I had seen something about this on list in the past
>> month, and didn't have time to answer, but I cannot for the life of me
>> find it. Unfortunately, /usr/libexec is not a part of the current FHS,
>> but, is a part of the 3.0 draft 1 (which hopefully will become official
>> someday)

https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2011/09/msg00039.html
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Philipp Kern <pkern at debian.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> Hurd violates the FHS by using /libexec. This name seems to be only used
>>> by init and /etc/ttys.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140505/61f2149e/attachment.sig>