On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:42:10 +0800, lina wrote: >>> >>>> Is it safe to add /sbin into PATH? >>> >>> To you user env? If it's not an exposed system, I'd say yes. >> >> It's even OK on an "exposed" system. Having "(/usr)/sbin" in PATH for >> everyone is the default for RHEL, Fedora, and Ubuntu and, anyway, the >> executables in "(/usr)/sbin" are all "x" for "other". > > Somebody over there thinks that they should all be combined. Not sure > why, but the fact that the current separation is historically derived > from circumstance, not design, seems to figure large in the arguments.
Yes, in the next version of Fedora, 16, "/bin/*", "/sbin/*", and "/lib/*" are being moved into "/usr/bin/", "/usr/sbin/", and "/usr/lib/". That's not quite the same thing. There's been talk of following up in a future version with a move of "/usr/sbin/*" into "/usr/bin/" but, AFAIK, the decision to implement this second unification hasn't been taken yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szhmsmp+eat3hmwhrqppex+uus-5fd816assfmtmrt...@mail.gmail.com
