Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Jonathan Underwood (jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com) said:
> > Because it's changing 500 packages, and you can't do the replacement
> > sanely in RPM anyway.
>
> Surely a large proportion of those 500 packages will be rebuilt in the
> F-10 release cycle anyway? However, I don't understand the second
> point you make there?
To do a full /sbin -> /bin migration, you'd need to:
1) Rebuild all packages to change paths
2) Maintain a list of things that are commonly referenced by third-party/local
scripts by path
3) Build a package that provides those symlinks
I fail to see how this is more efficient than just modifying $PATH. (Actually
I fail to see what horribly necessary commands are causing this to be a
big issue, but that's beside the point.)
Most programs in sbin won't work for a regular user, anyway.
It is much easier to set up the first/only user with the adequate PATH, and
leave it there.
The sbin vs bin distinction is useful on servers. It has a /very/ long
history by now, so changing that isn't easy.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616
counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513