On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
On Wed, 27.07.11 16:05, Miloslav Trmač (mitr(a)volny.cz) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
> > I think the right approach here is to prep a patch for the spec and make
> > the dir official given that a) it probably makes sense to have a
> > standardized dir like this,
>
> I can't really see who is the expected user of ~/.local/bin . From my
> POV the whole point of ~/.local is to store data that is hidden from
> users - it is "application" data, not "user data".
>
> Programs within the home directory were, presumably, explicitly
> installed and created by the user, so they are "user data" - and
> should be visible.
It's too late. XDG basedir is an established spec, since years
ago.
... which doesn't specify ~/.local/bin .
There's no point in discussing this anymore.
<sigh>
So, now we know:
a) there's at least one app already implementing ~/.local/bin
c) there's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a friendly project
...
and nobody has so far complained that it doesn't work by default,
so it has probably not been used much.
b) there's at least one OS already implementing ~/.local/bin
... for a little more than 6 weeks, so it is not really set in stone.
d) there is point in having a standardized dir for this
*shrug*
Anyone knowledgeable enough to install software in $HOME is
able to configure $PATH, and with some probability has strong opinions
on where the $prefix should be.
hence: let's just change the xdg basedir spec to standardize it.
IMHO the ~/.local/bin place is a mistake, and it's still not too late
to stop making this mistake irreversible.
Mirek