Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > On 2025-05-07 18:18:25 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: >> >> > On 2025-05-07 14:40:01 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> I think a reasonable conservative system policy is PATH=/usr/bin and >> >> anything beyond that is something the user or system administrator have >> >> to add. I think we should give up on /usr/games and move those >> >> executables to /usr/bin, renaming any binaries that conflict. >> > >> > I disagree. root should not have games in his path. This could also >> > annoy non-root users. >> >> That is a good point. Hmm. There is a lot more in /usr/bin that I >> wouldn't want root to have in PATH either, so I'm not sure I agree that >> the /usr/games exception gives root sufficient protection. Given that >> it is permissable to have naming conflicts as in /usr/bin/foo and >> /usr/games/foo, I would prefer the situation where everything under >> /usr/games was moved to /usr/bin and renamed on naming conflicts. Then >> root doesn't have to consider the possibility that invoking 'foo' may >> somehow end up running /usr/games/foo instead of /usr/bin/foo depending >> on PATH confusion. > > Note that this is not just for protection, but also for command > completion. Having many executables makes completion less useful. > Non-root users may currently drop /usr/games from their path.
I challenge that may be pre-mature optimization: jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/bin/|wc -l 4675 jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/games/|wc -l 21 jas@kaka:~$ The majority of games I had installed seems to be from Gnome and I think they could just as well be in /usr/bin. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
