On Wed, 2 May 2018, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I presume you mean "~/.local" rather than
"~/local"?
I don't. As my argument goes, hidden directories containing binaries
in your path are a bad idea. And it was a bad idea 15 years ago. Note
that my home directory seems to only contain ~/.local/share and nothing
else, so this hidden binary directory concept seems to have not been in
use for 15 years.
Storing configs in ~/.local/share seems okay with me, even though it
just moves the namespace from ~ to ~/.local with no good reason, while
still littering in ~/.??* anyway, but that's another issue.
Paul
> .local/ was introduced and documented in 2003. That's 15 years ago
> now. Pretty much everybody settled on it these days, and many
> distributions have clear language suggesting its use. For example,
> here's the wording from Debian:
>
> "Debian does not require that packages conform to the XDGBDS
> but strongly encourages upstreams to do so. "
>
> —
https://wiki.debian.org/XDGBaseDirectorySpecification
>
> Now, the ~/.local/bin/ thing is mostly just a natural extension of XDG
> basedir, and many systems have adopted it anyway without this being
> explicitly written into any spec.
>
> So yeah, I think it's about time we just update the spec to its
> natural extension and to what people already use. I don't think anyone
> is helped if we introduce yet another directory for this, in
> particular as the security benefit of using any other path is not
> universally agreed to.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org