Em Friday 22 August 2008 19:24:12 Jeremy Henty escreveu: > 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-uu >id-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 ? /sbin then, it's a system command.
> 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 .) Well, like the articles says you can use blkid too. I look in my gentoo system and see that /sbin/vol_id is a symlink to /lib/udev/vol_id. Perhaps putting it in other directories than /lib/udev can break the udev if it expect find this files in /lib and have this hardcoded (I don't know if this is true, it's a assumption). I find vold_id calls on udev rules of gentoo systems too using the symlink in PATH. > > (BTW, I'm not trying to lay down the law here, just raising an issue > than confused me and wondering what it means.) I understand. > > > ... 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? My network system is in /sbin and I start the iptables scripts just after it. I do this because I create a distro based on Linux From Scratch to use in my clients and for default it has a base (INPU/OUTPUT) firewall rules. So, before any other things goes up for network services, I start it in the base boot. Like I use some very simples boot scripts I put it on early start aside udev, mounts and others. In fact the FORWARD rules are load after, with network daemons and others in the case of the host be a gateway. > > Regards, > > Jeremy Henty Regards -- Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. Sócio-Diretor Trenix - IT Solutions "Nossas Idéias, suas Soluções!" www.trenix.com.br [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
