On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:22:48PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 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.
In this modern age of widespread use of scripting langhuages, looking
at "binaries" is missing the bigger picture. Any of the directories
$HOME/.local/{bin,lib,share} are liable to contain executable code.
My $HOME/.local/share/perl5 contains various Perl modules for example.
So saying $HOME/.local/share is ok while $HOME/.local/bin is not ok
doesn't really make much conceptual sense.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
