Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?
Followup-To: comp.unix.shell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:26:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vm9g7r$ish$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <vm5dei$2c7to$1@dont-email.me> <rRQhP.65293$XfF8.23235@fx04.iad> <8734hjga0n.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> <vm9err$35gfs$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:26:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="19345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2923
Lines: 44

In article <vm9err$35gfs$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>Since you're referring to me, the OP, please note that most arguments
>here have quickly made a relation to a straw man (a performance theme)
>or made other deviations from the basic question(s) that concerned me.
>
>Essentially there were two questions I had that I can reformulate in a
>more compact form as
>
>  "Why, in the first place, are all these path components
>   part of the default PATH for ordinary users? - Is there
>   any [functional] rationale or necessity for that?"

Not particularly.

The system has, probably for no really principled reason,
evolved over time such that that's simply the set of things that
are in $PATH by default on that particular machine.  Another
machine might be different.

If I had to hazard a guess, I imagine some of it comes from the
folks who put together the distribution, some upgrades, and the
choices of e.g. the window manager you're using (recalling that
at least one $PATH component appeared to come from that).

>  "_If_ many of the default PATH components are unnecessary,
>   where and how to best reduce these settings to a sensible
>   subset? - Without spoiling the system, of course."

There are many ways you could do this.  Probably the easiest is
just to explicitly set $PATH in your shell's startup files to
those directories you care about; that's what I usually do.  If
you make a mistake with it, you won't affect the rest of the
system.

If you want to set it globally for all users, there's likely
some file in /etc or similar that sets the defaults; on my Linux
machine I see a number of things in /etc/profile and
/etc/profile.d/* that seem relevant and there's /etc/login.defs;
PAM has its own way to set up $PATH.  I'm not sure I'd bother,
though, if setting it up for your own account is sufficient.

	- Dan C.