On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:43 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 08:36 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 07/26/2011 08:03 AM, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> >> 26.07.2011, 18:34, "Andrew Haley"<aph(a)redhat.com>:
> >>> On 26/07/11 10:22, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Since F15 ~/bin has been added to PATH, and commands that are
> >>>> supposed to run user scripts will work without changing into
> >>>> that directory. Meanwhile, ~/.local/bin isn't used. I'd
like
> >>>> to propose that it is also added because technically it is
> >>>> ~/bin's brother.
> >>>
> >>> I've never heard of ~/.local/bin . Are there many people who
> >>> use this? ~/bin is common.
> >>
> >> ~/.local/bin has been there by default.
> >>
> >> Unlike ~/bin, which is in PATH though not even created.
> >>
> >
> > Where in the path do the user 'bin' elements appear in the
> > path?
>
> In /etc/skel/.bash_profile they are added to the end and I think
> that is ok
>
> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
This was added between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bash.git;a=commitdiff;h=02b20d810...
because of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699812
There is some rationale in that bug, but I think it's extremely bogus.
Oh it seems every useful for purposes like installing executables that
most users will never find.
Rich.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.stramm(a)gmail.com