On Mi, 02.05.18 10:47, Paul Wouters (paul(a)nohats.ca) wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2018, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > It's already there. And it is XDG complaint. The question here is
about
> > > order (what takes priority).
> >
> > Can you point me to the XDG specification that requires it ? It was mentioned
by Lenart on the bug, but he later clarified his comment[1].
>
> So this came up again recently here:
>
>
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2017-August/013938.html
>
> (see the full thread)
>
> And I even promised to merge the proposed spec addition there, but
> never actually did that. Maybe I really should now...
Adding invisible directories to a user's PATH is putting esthetics over
security and is the wrong thing to do.
I have no problem with ~/bin/ but feel a bit reserved about ~/local/bin/
as ~/local might not be obvious to the user as an added binary containing
directory.
I presume you mean "~/.local" rather than "~/local"?
.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