[PATCH] vi should be in /usr/bin and not in /bin

[Natanael Copa]

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:11 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 06 September 2007 17:49, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 20:21 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > Hi Natanael,
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday 04 September 2007 18:33, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > > > While porting openbsd's sendbug I realized that busybox vi is in /bin
> > > > and not in /usr/bin where I would expect an application like vi.
> > ...
> > > Let me think about it till tomorrow.
> > 
> > Do you know what you want? (I wonder if i should my revert my patch for
> > my local build)
> 
> I feel that software generally shouldn't depend on where binaries are,
> and should just use PATH.
> 
> Users (admins) should have freedom to decide what does to /bin,
> and what to /usr/bin.

Hmmm... I just discovered /usr/include/paths.h

The reason I brought this up in first place is because I'm porting
openbsd's sendbug and it just uses _PATH_VI which is defined
in /usr/include/paths.h.

$ grep _PATH_VI /usr/include/paths.h
#define _PATH_VI        "/usr/bin/vi"

well... I guess I'll keep it in /usr/bin

> (btw I don't really understand why busybox has --install option,
>  I do it with shell script, but I won't remove --install)

Handy. You just need one single /bin/busybox and don't depend on lots of
other stuff.

> --
> vda