Am 04.05.2014 23:51, schrieb Björn Persson:
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 04.05.2014 18:54, schrieb Björn Persson:
>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> no, in general /usr/sbin is supposed to come before /usr/bin
>>> and any software assuming the opposite has a bug
>>>
>>> Am 04.05.2014 18:11, schrieb Ankur Sinha:
>>>> /usr/bin is supposed to come before /usr/sbin etc.
>>
>> I don't know of any kind of standard that specifies either. Does
>> Posix specify this for example? Does anyone have a link?
>
> normally no software should break independent of that
> order because it finds the binary anyways in the path
> and it is unlikely in a clean setup that the same
> binary exists in both
Right, and in the absence of a specified order in PATH it's a bug if
anything depends on *any* particular order.
> however, the semantics of /usr/sbin is to contain superuser
> binaries which should not be overriden because a binary
> with the same name exists in /usr/bin
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard says only that the sbin directories
are for programs that only system administrators use, and justifies them
with "a good partition between binaries that everyone uses and ones that
are primarily used for administration tasks". The part about not
overriding binaries is your own, personal opinion.
no, given that /usr/sbin/iptables is clearly a administrative
command and so there is no valid reason to seek for iptables
in /usr/bin/ nor have it as override is a logical conclusion
if you want to override things /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin
are your friends - however - back to topic:
"Incorrect order of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in path" is plain wrong
and the PATH /usr/sbin:/usr/bin is in any case correct - period