On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:31:36PM -0300, Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. wrote:
> Em Thursday 21 August 2008 14:51:12 Jeremy Henty escreveu:
> > I just noticed that both my LFS 6.1 and 6.3 systems installed
> > useful executables such as vol_id into /lib/udev rather than
> > anywhere in my $PATH .
>
> This executables is not need to be in the PATH, they are called by
> udev tools in background. They Follow the /usr/lib/<program>/* idea
> to separate libraries, backstage daemons, whatever from system
> aplications runned in terminals,
I understand what you say, but I expected something different after
reading a good article "How To Manage Your Disk By UUID On Linux"
http://linuxshellaccount.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-to-manage-your-disk-by-uuid-on.html
which says things like
1. If you don't know the UUID of your disk, you can find it by
using one of the several commands below:
host # vol_id /dev/sda3
...
ID_FS_UUID=a1331d73-d640-4bac-97b4-cf33a375ae5b
which fails on LFS because vol_id is not in $PATH . So maybe there is
a case for putting such things in /bin rather than /lib ? It
certainly suggests that other distros do that, since the writer seems
to assume that these commands will be in $PATH . (I understand the
reasons for not putting them in /usr .)
(BTW, I'm not trying to lay down the law here, just raising an issue
than confused me and wondering what it means.)
> ... personaly, I put the iptables modules there [not in /usr] too
> (my Firewall starts very early :-) )
OK, I'm interested. I consider myself fairly security-conscious but I
can't see the need to start iptables before mounting local file
systems like /usr . As long as your firewall starts before the
network, what could possibly go wrong? (Famous last words!) Unless
your /usr is networked?
Regards,
Jeremy Henty
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
