On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:22 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Haral
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leama
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> A
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> I get that some don't like $HOME/.local/bin; that's fine, agree to
> disagree (I don't really care one way or the other about this one).
> However, don't try to make it about security; that just isn't really an
> issue here, no matter how "obvio
Once upon a time, Miloslav Trmač said:
> I don't think this in practice matters _for security_[1]: Even the
> users that know ~/bin exists are extremely unlikely to be regularly
> checking its contents to see whether a malicious file hasn't been
> added.
And again, it isn't just directories in PA
Am 01.11.2013 20:55, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> [1] It might matter for troubleshooting.
> [2] Possible privilege escalations attacks to get root's or other
> user's permissions are irrelevant to our discussion.
[2] is very courageous (to say it nice) in the context we talk
signature.a
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 09:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> The attacker needs to be able to write to your home directory to
>> take advantage of it. And if he can do that (you lost) he has
>> numerous other ways of doing it.
>
> That is true. However, there i
On 11/01/2013 09:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2
On 2013-11-01 13:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 13:00, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
In both cases, everything the user had access to is compromised, including
.bash_profile itself. What other
*security* impact did you have in mind?
when i learned something about security than that the dange
Am 01.11.2013 13:00, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
> On 11/01/2013 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> the rootkit in /tmp/cp is in your path?
>
> If . would have been in $PATH and I happened to be in /tmp, then yes.
> On the other hand if I install something in my home, it does not affect other
> users
On 11/01/2013 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 11:08, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
On 11/01/2013 10:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23,
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>
On 2013-11-01 11:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
[cut ]
on multi-user systems it is *intentional* that the user does *not* install
software at it's own and if this should be the case the admin *one time*
will add a directory to PATH and say "there you go"
[cut]
Not necessarily (or even most often) tru
Am 01.11.2013 11:08, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
> On 11/01/2013 10:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 3
2013/11/1 Reindl Harald :
>> The attacker needs to be able to write to your home directory to take
>> advantage of it.
>> And if he can do that (you lost) he has numerous other ways of doing it
>
> so the people decided not put the current directory in the
> PATH on Unix *for security reasons* deca
On 11/01/2013 10:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl
Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.20
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>> Some ki
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>>> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> Some kind of reference for the bad in having a well-known, hidden
>
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 10:12 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> As for why they are hidden (and always have been) is because you
> do not want to bother the user with them most of the time.
That being said, they could have not started by a ".", but still be
hidden by the GUI file managers like Nautilus (for e
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyway what makes xdg specs a total wreakage is the way they've replaced
> dotfiles with other dotfiles only to create prettyfied localized symlinks
That's incorrect. The "prettyfied localized symlinks" are neither
symlinks nor
Hi,
Anyway what makes xdg specs a total wreakage is the way they've replaced
dotfiles with other dotfiles only to create prettyfied localized symlinks
à la windows (a bad case of over-engineering and aping another os without
understanding drawbacks)
Had they specified a ~/xdg/ root, with a stati
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> you can do this and that - but that's no valid argumentation
> doing bad things in default setups
But you are calling it "bad" with no real argument except repitition.
I've shown that it is not _any_ worse for security.
> *at least* do not
> place *hidden*
On Wed, 30 Oct, 2013 at 14:05:05 GMT, Christopher wrote:
> And, the xdg argument doesn't seem like a sufficient argument for
> me... we're talking about login scripts, not X. It is very unintuitive
> that an xdg-related directory would be on the default path for a bash
> login, if you're not even r
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:08:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> > Current defaults already has ~/bin in $PATH, and user can certainly put
> > things there. Isn't the issue here if having a hidden, writeable directory
> > in $PATH is such a bad idea, giv
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and no, you can't imagine an attack like "hey i have a sehll now and
> try around where i can compromise your setup" - in most cases after
> a buffer overlow and such things you have *one* chance to execture
> your code before the application
Am 30.10.2013 19:51, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:15:11 +0100,
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> which is not possible at all, any application running with your
>> user can write in your home directory and any security relevant
>> bug in that application may result in changes
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:15:11 +0100,
Reindl Harald wrote:
which is not possible at all, any application running with your
user can write in your home directory and any security relevant
bug in that application may result in changes
That doesn't have to be the case. selinux can be used to
Am 30.10.2013 18:59, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>>> If I can write to files you own, it doesn't matter if there's a
>>> directory in the PATH or not. I can write this to your .bash_profile:
>>>
>>>/bin/mkdir $HOME/.bin 2> /dev/null
>>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> If I can write to files you own, it doesn't matter if there's a
>> directory in the PATH or not. I can write this to your .bash_profile:
>>
>>/bin/mkdir $HOME/.bin 2> /dev/null
>>echo 'echo "i could rm -rf ~/ here"' > $HOME/.bin/mk
On 2013-10-30 15:50, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/30/2013 03:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 15:29, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Besides that, what and where users put things underneath of $HOME is
not a distro's busness
[cut]
Is it really
On 10/30/2013 03:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 15:29, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Besides that, what and where users put things underneath of $HOME is not a
distro's busness
and so it is not a distro's business to add something to $PATH
ins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2013 09:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test i could rm -rf ~/ here
>>
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir #!/bin/bash echo "i could
>> rm -rf ~/ here"
>
> If I ca
Am 30.10.2013 15:29, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
> On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Besides that, what and where users put things underneath of $HOME is not a
> distro's busness
and so it is not a distro's business to add something to $PATH
inside the userhome and finally you agreed w
On 2013-10-30 15:05, Christopher wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
Some kind of reference for the
On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
No, it should not. However, the right decision is in many cases a
trade-off between security and usabilty, not always with a single
answer. Allowing users to instal
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>>>
>>> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>
> On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote
On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
i gave you a starting point to learn about security and the reason
for sftp-chroot doing so is that someone could use race-conditions
to bypass the security
if you
On 2013-10-30 13:08, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
i gave you a starting point to learn about security and the reason
for sftp-chroot doing so is that someone could use race-conditions
to bypass the security
if you do
Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> i gave you a starting point to learn about security and the reason
>> for sftp-chroot doing so is that someone could use race-conditions
>> to bypass the security
>>
>> if you do not understand that allowing
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrot
Am 30.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 11:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>>> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 10:5
On 2013-10-30 11:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrot
Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>>> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 02:0
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
>>> On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ m
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
>>> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
>>>
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
#!/bin/bash
echo "i could rm -rf ~/ here"
If I can write to files you
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
>> i could rm -rf ~/ here
>>
>> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
>> #!/bin/bash
>> echo "i could rm -rf ~/ here"
>
> If I can write to files you own, it doesn't matter
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
> i could rm -rf ~/ here
>
> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
> #!/bin/bash
> echo "i could rm -rf ~/ here"
If I can write to files you own, it doesn't matter if there's a
directory in the PATH or not. I can wr
Am 30.10.2013 01:11, schrieb drago01:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>>> a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
>>> plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
>>
>> Not really. Anything that ca
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
>> plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
>
> Not really. Anything that can write to that directory can also write to
> s
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
> plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
Not really. Anything that can write to that directory can also write to
shell init scripts, desktop environment autostart settings, etc
On 2013-10-29 11:44, Alec Leamas wrote:
[cut]
BTW, don't we also lack a default, user-controlled directory for
manpages? Shouldn't ~/.local/share/man be part of user's default
MANPATH? Same usecase, basically same solution...
[Answering myself...] We, we don't lack that. As of f20, this
On 2013-10-29 10:56, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/29/2013 08:07 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 10/28/2013 09:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile (#
On 10/29/2013 08:07 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 10/28/2013 09:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile (#699812)
An invisible directory in everyone'
On 10/28/2013 09:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> * Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
>>> - Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile (#699812)
>> An invisible directory in everyone's PATH. That's rather unfortunate.
>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.10.2013 22:48, schrieb Matthias Clasen:
>> On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 16:27 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where, if anywhere, this behavior is specified. It's just
>>> what the Python package installation tools do.
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 22:50 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 28.10.2013 22:48, schrieb Matthias Clasen:
> > On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 16:27 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know where, if anywhere, this behavior is specified. It's just
> >> what the Python package installation tools
Am 28.10.2013 22:48, schrieb Matthias Clasen:
> On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 16:27 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
>
>> I don't know where, if anywhere, this behavior is specified. It's just
>> what the Python package installation tools do. I haven't seen any
>> other program do this, for better or wo
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 16:27 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
>
> I don't know where, if anywhere, this behavior is specified. It's just
> what the Python package installation tools do. I haven't seen any
> other program do this, for better or worse.
>
jhbuild [1] installs itself in $HOME/.local
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:30:05 +
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 14:00 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> > > Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > pip install --user
> >
> > The pip user scheme is to use ~/.local as an FHS-ish thing. IMO,
On 28 October 2013 14:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > >* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
> > >- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile (#699812)
> > An invisible directory in everyone's PATH. That's rather unfortuna
On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 14:00 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> > Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
>
> Yes.
>
> pip install --user
>
> The pip user scheme is to use ~/.local as an FHS-ish thing. IMO, this
> is much superior to the cabal, gem, etc. notion that they should e
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, I'll bite. Why is this _particularly_ unfortunate? The directory
> isn't
> actually "invisible", just hidden.
>
[snip]
> Now, if you want to argue that nothing user-writable should be in $PATH by
> default, I can maybe see your poin
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
> >- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile (#699812)
> An invisible directory in everyone's PATH. That's rather unfortunate.
Okay, I'll bite. Why is this _particularly_ unfortuna
On 10/28/2013 02:08 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 11:28 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Exists for a longer time already, added in of the .fc16 builds:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:00:54 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> > Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
>
> Yes.
>
> pip install --user
>
> The pip user scheme is to use ~/.local as an FHS-ish thing. IMO, this
> is much superior to the cabal, gem, etc. notion that they should
Am 28.10.2013 20:00, schrieb Michael Ekstrand:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:51:06 +0100
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:44:23 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>>
>>> Deja vú:
>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/154896.html
>>
>> Hah! A thread of doom.
>>
>>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:51:06 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:44:23 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
> > Deja vú:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/154896.html
>
> Hah! A thread of doom.
>
> [...]
>
> Does any software store files into $HOME/.loca
Am 28.10.2013 19:51, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:44:23 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
>> Deja vú:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/154896.html
>
> Hah! A thread of doom.
>
> [...]
>
> Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
n
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:44:23 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Deja vú:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/154896.html
Hah! A thread of doom.
[...]
Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On 10/28/2013 07:08 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 11:28 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Michael Schwendt wrote:
/home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
Or is it new for Rawhide?
$ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HO
On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 11:28 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> >> /home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
> >> Or is it new for Rawhide?
> >
> > $ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
> > PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
> > export PATH
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Michael Schwendt wrote:
/home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
Or is it new for Rawhide?
$ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
export PATH
Exists for a longer time already, added in of the .fc16 builds:
* Tue Jun 07 20
> /home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
> Or is it new for Rawhide?
$ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
export PATH
Exists for a longer time already, added in of the .fc16 builds:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus <…> - 4.2.10-3
- Added $HOME/
77 matches
Mail list logo
