On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Tom Gundersen teg@jklm.no wrote:

Hi guys,

When updating our default PATH in /etc/profile due to the usrmerge I noticed it is not consistent with the system-wide PATH set by PID1.

systemd sets:

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin"

which for us is equivalent to

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin"

but profile used to set:

"/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin"

which for us is equivalent to

"/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin"

For consistency I changed (in testing) the path set in /etc/profile to

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin"

Any objections?

Tom

No, this is definitely the right thing to do. Having /usr/local/sbin after /usr/bin wouldn't override binaries correctly.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi vmlinuz386@yahoo.com.ar wrote:

On 05/31/2013 04:04 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

Hi guys,

When updating our default PATH in /etc/profile due to the usrmerge I noticed it is not consistent with the system-wide PATH set by PID1.

systemd sets:

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin"

which for us is equivalent to

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin"

but profile used to set:

"/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin"

which for us is equivalent to

"/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin"

For consistency I changed (in testing) the path set in /etc/profile to

"/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin"

Any objections?

Tom

will be made the symlink for sbin -> bin for /usr/local ?

I think we should eventually, but we are not doing it at the moment (and a few people object to it). My plan was to write an RFC for that once the current transition has finished.

-t