Why not sn_node in /usr/local/bin?

Features
1

Hardly of ground-shaking importance right now but something that has bugged me for a while…

If the safe CLI binary should be placed in /usr/local/bin and under root ownership then why is the sn_node binary (the new safenode) not handled similarly?

Placing binaries in /usr/local/bin is of course more correct, more “Unixy” even if the benefits seem to be somewhat nebulous in this case as SAFE is unlikely to be run (in earnest) on a true multi-user box. So why the inconsistency?

Or is this location of binaries something that can get cleared up at some/any point before release and is not a screaming urgency right now??

2 Likes
2

Yeah, I agree with this and it will be implemented with safeup.

It will have the same behaviour as the install script: if you run it elevated, either the client or the node will be installed to /usr/local/bin by default, otherwise, to the home directory.

5 Likes
3

Btw, should we possibly have one thread for dealing with UX for the safe, safenode and safeup binaries? Just call it like “User Experience for the CLIs” or something like that?

3 Likes