Antoine Beaupré <anar...@debian.org> writes: > On 2023-09-11 11:25:34, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Antoine Beaupré <anar...@debian.org> writes:
>>> I get the argument against bad binaries not being in PATH but we have >>> some tooling for that, don't we? /usr/libexec, no? >> /usr/libexec isn't a replacement because it's not on any user's PATH. >> /usr/games is intended to be added to a regular user's path but not >> root's, which is a distinct use case. > That's an odd argument to make: /usr/games isn't on any user's PATH > either, is it? It's common to add it, and I'm fairly sure we have documentation that tells you to add it, whereas adding /usr/libexec to your PATH is a bug and something that you should not do. The binaries in /usr/libexec are not intended to be invoked directly, may conflict with other binaries, may do bizarre things when run from the command line, etc. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
