On 06/24/2018 04:17 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 20:32, Björn Persson <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote: > [..] >> Yes. There is no order that is obviously best for all purposes. >> >> I know at least one well-designed programming language where, if two >> declarations have the same identifier but in different namespaces, and >> both of those namespaces are imported, then neither declaration masks >> the other. Instead they are both hidden so that the programmer has to >> specify the namespace, making the code unambiguous. An equivalent of >> this would be if the shell would look in all the directories that are >> listed in PATH, and reject the command as ambiguous if there are >> matching programs in more than one of those directories. The user would >> then have to type a pathname to specify which program they want. That >> would be safer, but less convenient – and of course an incompatible >> change. > There is only huge logical flaw in above .. > > If someone is developer of course that could be a solution. > However if such developer wants to install anything in /usr/local it > NEEDS to have root permission to install something in this prefix. > Why such person cannot just prepare prpm package(s) using own non-root > account and install those packages as regular upgrade if such packages > provides copy of some existing packages? > Amnd/or why someone want to waste own time first to test something > unpackaged to keep in /usr/local than at the end spend another chunk > of time to package all this stuff into rpms? > Where is the logic doing this that way??? > > Of course if someone is no-developer such person don't need this kind > of things like /usr/local based paths in $PATH. > > Nevertheless EMBEDDING in regular OOTB distribution /usr/local based > paths for (only) such propose is worse possible "adaptation" ever!!! > Fedora or any other Linux distribution does not need to "support" > every possible approach or habit used by all possible developers which > are working on new or modified/adapted versions of some software. > Because Fedora and other distros are using packages any development > workflow supported by distro A should be using packaged software. > > Again: using /usr/local based paths means that someone already has > root privs so such person can just prepare own package and install it. > With packaged software as well is possible easy rollback any chang. Isn't it? > Someone can even build own packages using public corp or travis-ci (in > docker in this case) service without installing whole devel stuff on > own system. > > So far .. > Conclusion 1: Still there is no ANY REAL reasons why /usr/local paths > must be present OOTB. > Conclusion 2: If that is true as consequence Fedora should have only > /usr/bin or bin for non-root users and /usr/sbin/:/usr/bin or > /sbin:/bin as OOTB $PATH. > > kloczek There's no reason administrators should be expected create and install RPMs... _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PYDR4OWLTS6T7OYT6ETDIF32MJS7RZA3/
