default path
in [Shell]
|
Prev: YANQUI courts were ALWAYS K A N G A R O O Courts - thats how they carried out GENOCIDE of NATIVES !!!
Next: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC explosive-charge placement technician Tom Sullivan 911 TESTIMONIAL Video
From: John Kelly on 26 Jun 2010 12:22 In my default path, I prefer "local" at the end: /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin Seems like most distros though, do it the other way around and put "local" first. To me that seems like a bad idea, because you could inadvertently, without realizing it, override system binaries. With "local" at the end, there no danger of overriding system binaries with some local binary of the same name. And when "local" binary names conflict with system binaries, the local admin in control of "local" can give local binaries unique names, or perhaps uninstall system binaries of the same name, if they are not needed. Other opinions? -- Web mail, POP3, and SMTP http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php
From: Janis Papanagnou on 26 Jun 2010 12:53 On 26/06/10 18:22, John Kelly wrote: > > In my default path, I prefer "local" at the end: > > /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin > > Seems like most distros though, do it the other way around and put > "local" first. To me that seems like a bad idea, because you could > inadvertently, without realizing it, override system binaries. But isn't that the purpose of /usr/local/bin, to override if necessary and add new (non-standard) tools if desired? Those local/bin directories should usually be quite empty anyway, so name clashes should be rare and then probably intended. > > With "local" at the end, there no danger of overriding system binaries > with some local binary of the same name. With local at the end you'd have to provide the full pathname or change your PATH if you want to access those. Changing your PATH leaves you, again, with the undesired configuration that you now seem to suffer from. > And when "local" binary names > conflict with system binaries, the local admin in control of "local" can > give local binaries unique names, or perhaps uninstall system binaries > of the same name, if they are not needed. > > Other opinions? I prefer to be able to override system tools by tools in local, and override local tools by those in my ~/bin. But that's on a machine where I have full control over all bin directories. If I'd be confronted with an admin who installs dubious software on /usr/local/bin that name-clashes with the ones in /usr/bin I'd redefine the PATH appropriately, or define soft links in my ~/bin. For "commercial purposes" it's good to explicitly define the PATH in your scripts anyway! Janis > >
From: Keith Keller on 26 Jun 2010 12:55 On 2010-06-26, John Kelly <jak(a)isp2dial.com> wrote: > > In my default path, I prefer "local" at the end: > > /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin > > Seems like most distros though, do it the other way around and put > "local" first. To me that seems like a bad idea, because you could > inadvertently, without realizing it, override system binaries. Alternatively, you could intentionally, with realizing it, override system binaries. > With "local" at the end, there no danger of overriding system binaries > with some local binary of the same name. And when "local" binary names > conflict with system binaries, the local admin in control of "local" can > give local binaries unique names, or perhaps uninstall system binaries > of the same name, if they are not needed. Sometimes system binaries can't be uninstalled (because of local policy, or package management, or whatever). It's handy to have a way to override a system binary without having to modify it. A good syadmin will use this feature sparingly but will still want it available if needed. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: John Kelly on 26 Jun 2010 13:14 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:53:10 +0200, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 26/06/10 18:22, John Kelly wrote: >> >> In my default path, I prefer "local" at the end: >> >> /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin >> >> Seems like most distros though, do it the other way around and put >> "local" first. To me that seems like a bad idea, because you could >> inadvertently, without realizing it, override system binaries. > >But isn't that the purpose of /usr/local/bin, to override if >necessary and add new (non-standard) tools if desired? Those >local/bin directories should usually be quite empty anyway, so >name clashes should be rare and then probably intended. Makes sense if you only run a vanilla distro. But I create many local hacks and put them in local. > >> With "local" at the end, there no danger of overriding system binaries >> with some local binary of the same name. > >With local at the end you'd have to provide the full pathname >or change your PATH if you want to access those. Changing your >PATH leaves you, again, with the undesired configuration that >you now seem to suffer from. I didn't mean to suggest that I am having any problem with it; I'm not, it works well for me. >> And when "local" binary names >> conflict with system binaries, the local admin in control of "local" can >> give local binaries unique names, or perhaps uninstall system binaries >> of the same name, if they are not needed. >> >> Other opinions? > >I prefer to be able to override system tools by tools in local, >and override local tools by those in my ~/bin. But that's on a >machine where I have full control over all bin directories. If >I'd be confronted with an admin who installs dubious software >on /usr/local/bin that name-clashes with the ones in /usr/bin >I'd redefine the PATH appropriately That's more or less my point. Admins should choose unique names for their dubious local binaries. Implicitly overriding system tools is dangerous. There is so much "stuff" in a distro, can you be sure you're not stepping on something without realizing it? I want my distro binaries to operate as the distro intends. To override one, I use a different name, or uninstall the distro version, if it's not needed. -- Web mail, POP3, and SMTP http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php
From: John Kelly on 26 Jun 2010 13:20
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:55:56 -0700, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: >On 2010-06-26, John Kelly <jak(a)isp2dial.com> wrote: >> >> In my default path, I prefer "local" at the end: >> >> /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin >> >> Seems like most distros though, do it the other way around and put >> "local" first. To me that seems like a bad idea, because you could >> inadvertently, without realizing it, override system binaries. > >Alternatively, you could intentionally, with realizing it, override >system binaries. I understand that. It's a trade off. >> With "local" at the end, there no danger of overriding system binaries >> with some local binary of the same name. And when "local" binary names >> conflict with system binaries, the local admin in control of "local" can >> give local binaries unique names, or perhaps uninstall system binaries >> of the same name, if they are not needed. > >Sometimes system binaries can't be uninstalled (because of local policy, >or package management, or whatever). It's handy to have a way to >override a system binary without having to modify it. A good syadmin >will use this feature sparingly but will still want it available if >needed. I've never faced a situation where I had to do it. Somehow, I find another way. -- Web mail, POP3, and SMTP http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php |