Mailinglist Archive: yast-devel (73 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [yast-devel] Moving stuff from /sbin /bin /lib /lib64 to /usr/*
On 7.7.2014 14:07, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:01:15 +0200
Lukas Ocilka <lukas.ocilka@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi fellow developers :)

Fourteen days ago, I had an issue to fix: Installer was
calling /bin/rm but there was none - it's been already moved
to /usr/bin/rm [#1]. Object /bin/rm should have been linking
to /usr/bin/rm. In fact, the bug has been most probably caused by a
broken build or installer DVD or maybe inst-sys build.

But this has shown how fragile might be a code that uses obsolete
paths [#2], [#3]. So, please, next time you (or me) add a code which
calls some binaries, let's make sure it uses the `currently` right
path. Let's use the /usr/* whenever it's possible.

Many people are asking: Should I change all the code now? The answer
is: No, just when you touch it anyway, make sure you change it the
right way. It's similar to replacing Builtins.* with with their Ruby
fellows, e.g. Builtins.y2milestone ->

Thanks in advance


PS: Please correct me if I have written anything wrong :)

I have general question and I think answer to it should be somewhere
written as documented decision.

Why we use absolute path to binary? I think proper set PATH in
environment should be goal and use common path. Also from security
point of view it is quite useless because if PATH is attacked, then
also any real root action is attacked.

For me it is more native to write "rm -rf /" and not "/usr/bin/rm
-rf /".

Sure, I myself also prefer the shorter way, but I think it was because of security. Let's ask our security expert if this is really the case, or whether it has changed meanwhile.

Thomas, please, have a look.

Thanks in advance


Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader
Cloud & Systems Management Department, SUSE Linux
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >