On 07/27/2011 12:19 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 27.07.11 17:40, Roman Rakus (rrakus(a)redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the change. Any objections?
Yes. I am for keeping it in, and have prepped a patch for XDG basedir to
make it official.
What actually is the benefit of doing this? Why does xdg need the shell
have the PATH env include this - if xdg wants to use a fixed path - then
should it not use a fixed path and not require specific PATH environment
anyway?
There seem to be 2 issues here which are being mixed up it seems to me ...
(i) merits of putting binaries in a .local/bin area for xdg
convenience (or whatever)
(ii) need to have that same area be in the default PATH.
(i) does not imply (ii) at all.
So I vote to remove it from the default shell path.
gene