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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
