Q: executables in /lib/udev , is this correct?
onepoint at starurchin.org
Fri Aug 22 15:24:12 PDT 2008
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:31:36PM -0300, Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. wrote:
> Em Thursday 21 August 2008 14:51:12 Jeremy Henty escreveu:
> > I just noticed that both my LFS 6.1 and 6.3 systems installed
> > useful executables such as vol_id into /lib/udev rather than
> > anywhere in my $PATH .
> This executables is not need to be in the PATH, they are called by
> udev tools in background. They Follow the /usr/lib/<program>/* idea
> to separate libraries, backstage daemons, whatever from system
> aplications runned in terminals,
I understand what you say, but I expected something different after
reading a good article "How To Manage Your Disk By UUID On Linux"
which says things like
1. If you don't know the UUID of your disk, you can find it by
using one of the several commands below:
host # vol_id /dev/sda3
which fails on LFS because vol_id is not in $PATH . So maybe there is
a case for putting such things in /bin rather than /lib ? It
certainly suggests that other distros do that, since the writer seems
to assume that these commands will be in $PATH . (I understand the
reasons for not putting them in /usr .)
(BTW, I'm not trying to lay down the law here, just raising an issue
than confused me and wondering what it means.)
> ... personaly, I put the iptables modules there [not in /usr] too
> (my Firewall starts very early :-) )
OK, I'm interested. I consider myself fairly security-conscious but I
can't see the need to start iptables before mounting local file
systems like /usr . As long as your firewall starts before the
network, what could possibly go wrong? (Famous last words!) Unless
your /usr is networked?
More information about the lfs-support