Subject: admin binaries and configuration

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 07:32:41 GMT

Two points:
 
1)  To decide that something is a binary for administrative
    purposes only is harder on Linux than it is on most systems.
    For example, you should be able to format, mkfs, and mount
    a floppy disk without being root.  For this reason, format,
    mkfs, mount, umount, fsck, etc., may well need to be in /bin
    instead of in /etc, where most Unixes would put them.  On
    the other hand, I think init and update should probably not
    be in /bin, since even root ought not normally execute them
    as commands.  This is why I suggested in an earlier note that
    they ought to go in /lib.  Someone objected that /lib ought
    not contain executables.  What about /lib/cpp, /usr/lib/sendmail,
    and such executables, which are traditionally in library
    directories?  Personally I suspect cpp belongs in a bin
    somewhere.  What about daemons?
 
2)  I suggest that files be distinguished into
 
    a) Configuration files (passwd, group, inetd.conf).
    b) Executables and scripts which only root should run,
       even on Linux (telinit, shutdown, reboot).
    c) Executables which not even root should normally run
       (update, gated, inetd).
 
    Now, when I think in these terms, I find it awfully difficult
    to be clear about these categories.  What about rc, for
    example; does it belong in a, in b, or in c?  If we have a
    special directory for root-only executables, shouldn't all,
    or almost all, of (c) be in it as well as (b), since under
    some circumstances root may want to start these off manually?
 
    In short, while I sympathise most strongly with those who
    would like to see the stuff in /etc be homogeneous, I am not
    at all certain that it can be done.  At best we might put
    configuration files in /etc and the rest in /etc/bin, or
    binaries in /etc and the rest in /etc/conf.
 
A. V. Le Blanc
University of Manchester
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike Murphy)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 12:50:45 PST

>    somewhere.  What about daemons?

The security problems mounting a floppy disk are interesting :-)
It may well be desirable to limit access to such functions as format,
fsck, mkfs, mount, et.al. in order to maintain a stable computing
environment. I am suggesting here that linux and what it becomes
could be in a large multi-user environment, a process control
environment, a who-knows-how-used envrionment. If it's a system
maintenance function, e.g., fsck, then I think it ought to live
in /etc. Just opinion, but my use of a system may not match someone
elses.

>    binaries in /etc and the rest in /etc/conf.

Sounds pretty good, except for the dire consequences of having format
live in /bin :-)
--
Mike Murphy  [email-masked]  ucsd!optigfx!mrm    +1 619 292 6060 x 265
Optigraphics Corporation  9339 Carroll Park Drive  San Diego, CA  92121
The opinion(s) expressed above are  mine  and not those of my employer.