Once upon a time, Bryn M. Reeves <b...@redhat.com> said: > I just assumed it was by analogy to /usr/local - a per-user directory for > local > installation with a structure mimicking /usr.
But the user already has the whole home directory. On RPM-managed systems, the different between /usr and /usr/local is that /usr is RPM managed and /usr/local is not. ~/ is already not RPM-managed. ~/bin has been in the default PATH for many years; why do we need a second such directory? The source of /usr/local was NFS-mounted /usr, with /usr/local being on the local system. ~/ would typically be NFS mounted in that type of setup (users don't get space on the local drive except /tmp), so ~/.local would be meaningless. -- Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
