|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Program names and "pollution"

Program names and "pollution"

Posted Apr 3, 2019 15:57 UTC (Wed) by jccleaver (guest, #127418)
In reply to: Program names and "pollution" by buck
Parent article: Program names and "pollution"

I'm a fan of environment modules, but they're not suited for this unless you really need to segregate employees out.

This really is *primarily* a postgresql problem. I'm hard pressed to think of any conflict or overly-vague script or binary names I've experienced outside of PGSQL other than one conflict with the "maildir" utility back in the early 2000's. Most projects know to keep anything likely to be placed into a $PATH as unique as possible and seem pretty reasonable about it. That's not to say that growth isn't a problem, but that's more a function of Fedora's UsrMove and some people pushing for a conflation of Bin and Sbin than anything else.

One thing I really would like to see though is more use of libexec where appropriate. If these binaries aren't really intended for execution by humans except in unusual, debugging situations, they don't need to be in $PATH. Move them to /usr/libexec/ where they belong.


to post comments


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds