On Wed, 27.07.11 21:59, Marc-André Lureau (marcandre.lur...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> 2011/7/27 Miloslav Trmač :
> > (And of course, the thing to standardize would not be "bin", but a
> > subdirectory structure as defined by the GNU standards for --prefix.)
>
> I agree, it is precisely what
On 07/28/2011 12:36 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>>
>
>> I don't follow your thought here - if you have a bin64/ and a bin/
>> etc and you have your shell initscripts decide (e.g. using uname -m)
>> which of those to include in your PATH I think it does work ... provided
>> you have (obviously) b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/07/11 15:46, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 09:09 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 01:41 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>>
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:00:28PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Depends on the PATH-Order
> >
> > if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
> > to write there his "ls" would win against "/bin/ls"
>
> So, the attacker can wri
Am 28.07.2011 15:34, schrieb Marian Ganisin:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:36:08AM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
>>> c) there's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a friendly
>>> project
>>
>> This is STILL a security risk, even if somebody calls it a standard.
>
> This is STILL a claim wi
On 07/28/2011 03:50 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> My understanding of the history of /usr/local's nomenclature is that it
> was intended to be "local" to the machine (and thus not NFS mounted).
I always understood it to be site local rather than machine local - the FHS
states that it may be used fo
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 08:54 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 08:41 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> >> On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >>> This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
> >>> lo
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:35 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> As it stands, ~/bin and ~/.local/bin are only appropriate for binaries
> that are not arch-specific.
Ahem. s/binaries/executables/
--
Braden McDaniel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On 07/28/2011 10:35 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Really, sharing of $HOME can (and does) happen among much *more*
> disparate architectures than x86 and x86_64. We don't have to think
> about this as much these days now that MIPS and SPARC have waned in
> popularity; but the idea that we might st
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:34:34 +0200
Marian Ganisin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:36:08AM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > > c) there's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a
> > > friendly project
> >
> > This is STILL a security risk, even if somebody calls it a standard.
>
> This
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 08:41 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> >> This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
> >> login to a 32 bit (or other arch) - bin now makes now sens
On 07/28/2011 09:09 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 01:41 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
login to a 32 bit (or
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:35:27 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 01:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:28 +0100
> > "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> > It is nevertheless an *added* avenue to do some phishing. And for
> > what benefit?
>
> No, it's not; at the very most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/27/2011 10:52 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:43:09 +0200 Nicolas Mailhot
> wrote:
>> Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 12:26 +0200, Stijn Hoop a écrit :
>>> and even better is the fact that I can now put that area
>>> somew
On 07/28/2011 01:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:28 +0100
> "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> It is nevertheless an *added* avenue to do some phishing. And for what
> benefit?
No, it's not; at the very most it's making something very slightly less
noticeable but even that is a weak
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:36:08AM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > c) there's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a friendly
> > project
>
> This is STILL a security risk, even if somebody calls it a standard.
This is STILL a claim without any proof, even if somebody repeats it
every tim
On 07/28/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> The source of /usr/local was NFS-mounted /usr, with /usr/local being on
> the local system.
This only partially applies - The source of /usr/local was to override
system programs and system libraries in /usr with locally installed
files (below /usr/lo
On 07/28/2011 01:41 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>> This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
>>> login to a 32 bit (or other arch) - bin now makes now sense at all. You
>
Once upon a time, Bryn M. Reeves 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
On 07/28/2011 08:41 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>> This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
>>> login to a 32 bit (or other arch) - bin now makes now sense at all. You
>
On 07/28/2011 07:53 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> This is a good point. Especially when you start on a 64 bit box and
>> login to a 32 bit (or other arch) - bin now makes now sense at all. You
>> need arch specific bins (bin, bin64 etc).
>
> Curre
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:28 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:54 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:24:48 +0100
> > "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> >> There are already quite a few things that may place executables
> >> under . prefixed paths in home. Java web start (ja
On 07/28/2011 12:54 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:24:48 +0100
> "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
>> There are already quite a few things that may place executables
>> under . prefixed paths in home. Java web start (javaws) for instance
>> will install an entire jre under .java/deployment
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:24:48 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 03:14 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:09 +0200
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> If you don't hide ~/.local and ~/.config then users who are less
> >> savvy than us might wonder what thzat stuff is
On 07/28/2011 12:46 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 06:17 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>
>>
>> However, I find ~/.local an odd name. To whom or what is it 'local'? If
>> you have home directories mounted via NFS and log into two different remote
>> hosts via SSH - the only base is "loc
On 07/28/2011 06:17 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>
> However, I find ~/.local an odd name. To whom or what is it 'local'? If
> you have home directories mounted via NFS and log into two different remote
> hosts via SSH - the only base is "local" to, is the user. But if you start
> a program whi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/07/11 17:40, Roman Rakus wrote:
> Hi all,
> from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the change. Any objections?
+1 ... at least the there is some common consensus, also across distributions.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
-BEGIN P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/07/11 15:54, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[..snip..]
> If you don't hide ~/.local and ~/.config then users who are less savvy
> than us might wonder what thzat stuff is and delete it and nothing will
> stop them and then all their configuration is l
On 07/27/2011 03:14 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:09 +0200
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> If you don't hide ~/.local and ~/.config then users who are less savvy
>> than us might wonder what thzat stuff is and delete it and nothing
>> will stop them and then all their configur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/07/11 16:24, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27.07.11 16:05, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
[...snip...]
>> d) there i
On 07/27/2011 10:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 27.07.2011 21:59, schrieb Marc-André Lureau:
>> I don't understand the security risks. If something is allowed to
>> write to ~/.local/bin (or ~/bin etc..), then surely it's able to read
>> elsewhere or do something else nasty. Could someone det
On 07/27/2011 04:05 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> 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 rea
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 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".
I am. I'm using that for years and I'm very happy that bin/ doesn't clutter m
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 21:59 +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>
> I don't understand the security risks. If something is allowed to
> write to ~/.local/bin (or ~/bin etc..), then surely it's able to read
> elsewhere or do something else nasty. Could someone detail it?
Also, consider that the attack
Am 27.07.2011 23:00, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Depends on the PATH-Order
>>
>> if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
>> to write there his "ls" would win against "/bin/ls"
>
> So, the attacker can write a compromised ls i
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:14:22 -0400
Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Depends on the PATH-Order
> >>
> >> if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is
> >> able to write there his "ls" would w
On 07/27/2011 05:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Depends on the PATH-Order
>>
>> if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
>> to write there his "ls" would win against "/bin/ls"
>
> So, the attacker can write a compromised ls in
On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Depends on the PATH-Order
>
> if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
> to write there his "ls" would win against "/bin/ls"
So, the attacker can write a compromised ls into .local/bin/, but isn't
able to modify your .bash_pr
Am 27.07.2011 21:59, schrieb Marc-André Lureau:
> I don't understand the security risks. If something is allowed to
> write to ~/.local/bin (or ~/bin etc..), then surely it's able to read
> elsewhere or do something else nasty. Could someone detail it?
Depends on the PATH-Order
if something is
Hi
2011/7/27 Miloslav Trmač :
> (And of course, the thing to standardize would not be "bin", but a
> subdirectory structure as defined by the GNU standards for --prefix.)
I agree, it is precisely what I would like to see in a standard, a
home "GNU" prefix for installing projects locally (that is,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:19:19PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 17:40, Roman Rakus (rra...@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
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:40:39PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> Hi all, from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the
> change. Any objections?
+1
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 12:19 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 27.07.11 17:40, Roman Rakus (rra...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the change. Any objections?
>>
>> Yes. I am for keepi
On 07/27/2011 12:19 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 17:40, Roman Rakus (rra...@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
On Wed, 27.07.11 17:40, Roman Rakus (rra...@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.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> Hi all,
> from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the change. Any objections?
If it helps ending this discussion I'm all for it.
~/.local/bin is not worth this amount of time, regardless whether it was
a good idea to begin with or no
Hi all,
from the discussion here, I'm tempted to revert the change. Any objections?
RR
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 07/27/2011 12:20 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 27/07/11 10:47, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> In /etc/skel/.ba
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:43:09 +0200
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 12:26 +0200, Stijn Hoop a écrit :
> > and even better is the fact that I can now put that area
> > somewhere else than on our default stupidly-expensive backupped NFS
> > filesystem.
>
> And what will
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:54:09PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 10:30, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > Note that there are a number of 3rd party projects making use of
> > > ~/.config/bin afaik, including jhbuild which installs its executable to
> > > that dir.
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:24:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> IMHO the ~/.local/bin place is a mistake, and it's still not too late
> to stop making this mistake irreversible.
Yeah. Every $PATH element has its runtime cost (execvp needs to search
that path, at least for unsuccessful searches,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:13:11 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 16:05, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> > > I think the right approach here is to prep a patch for the spec
> > > and make the dir off
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 16:05, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > I think the right approach here is to prep a patch for the spec and make
>> > the dir official given tha
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:09 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 27.07.11 10:30, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > Note that there are a number of 3rd party projects making use of
> > > ~/.config/bin afaik, including jhbuild which installs its
> > > executable to that dir.
> >
>
On Wed, 27.07.11 16:05, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> 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 li
On Wed, 27.07.11 10:01, seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > I think the discussion where to place this is moot anyway, as the spec
> > has been written years ago and widely (though not universally)
> > implemented, and
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
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
On Wed, 27.07.11 13:10, Andrew Haley (a...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Nah, the basedir spec does not mandate the bin subdir.
> >
> > WHat I said in the bug report is that I think it makes a lot of sense to
> > have the XDG basedir stuff in the $PATH.
>
> I have to say that
>
> a. xdg (in the form
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I think the discussion where to place this is moot anyway, as the spec
> has been written years ago and widely (though not universally)
> implemented, and we should just stick to it, since where it to place it
> is nothing more than bi
On Wed, 27.07.11 10:30, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Note that there are a number of 3rd party projects making use of
> > ~/.config/bin afaik, including jhbuild which installs its executable to
> > that dir.
>
> It would be nice to clean up $HOME, radically reduce the number of
> the
On 07/27/2011 01:00 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 12:54 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
>> On 07/27/2011 11:45 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 11:23 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
On 27/07/11 11:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Really
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 12:54 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
> On 07/27/2011 11:45 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 11:23 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
> >> On 27/07/11 11:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >>> Really, this discussion is pointless. It should be taken
On 07/27/2011 11:45 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 11:23 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
>> On 27/07/11 11:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> Really, this discussion is pointless. It should be taken to whoever
>>> maintains the xdg directory layout specs nowadays (even the
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 11:23 +0100, Andrew Haley a écrit :
> On 27/07/11 11:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> > Really, this discussion is pointless. It should be taken to whoever
> > maintains the xdg directory layout specs nowadays (even the FHS editors
> > gave up on normalizing /home layou
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 12:26 +0200, Stijn Hoop a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> aside from the merits of adding ~/.local/bin, I just wanted to point
> out:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:19:51 +0200
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > It's all been done to make nautilus happy with "user-friendly"
> > "localized"
Hi,
aside from the merits of adding ~/.local/bin, I just wanted to point
out:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:19:51 +0200
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> It's all been done to make nautilus happy with "user-friendly"
> "localized" names on the user desktop (aping the windows mess). And
> now gnome3 people have
On 27/07/11 11:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Really, this discussion is pointless. It should be taken to whoever
> maintains the xdg directory layout specs nowadays (even the FHS editors
> gave up on normalizing /home layout and pushed the problem xdg-side)
No, because this is not an xdg-mandated
On 27/07/11 10:47, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
>> On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
In /etc/skel/.bash_profile they are added to the end and I think t
Hi,
Really, this discussion is pointless. It should be taken to whoever
maintains the xdg directory layout specs nowadays (even the FHS editors
gave up on normalizing /home layout and pushed the problem xdg-side)
http://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788#c5
http://standards.freedesktop.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> >> In /etc/skel/.bash_profile they are added to the end and I think that is ok
> >>
> >> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:34:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a visible directory for
> binaries. People will see that, and be annoyed.
(I have a suggestion, what about to install by default the old good
heroin kernel module? It was able to
27.07.2011, 10:17, "Chris Adams" :
> I've used ~/bin since before Linux was available, so I don't really see
> the point in trying to "hide" it (of course, I alias ls to "ls -FCA", so
> ~/.bin wouldn't be hidden, just one extra character to type when I need
> to access it).
Noone has asked to "hid
Once upon a time, Matej Cepl said:
> Dne 26.7.2011 20:40, Bernd Stramm napsal(a):
> > Oh it seems every useful for purposes like installing executables that
> > most users will never find.
>
> Actually I would prefer ~/.local/bin to ~/bin ... I actually use ~/ as
> my workspace (I never got what'
Dne 26.7.2011 20:40, Bernd Stramm napsal(a):
> Oh it seems every useful for purposes like installing executables that
> most users will never find.
Actually I would prefer ~/.local/bin to ~/bin ... I actually use ~/ as
my workspace (I never got what's the point of ~/Desktop) so I don't
want to du
On 07/26/2011 03:34 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a visible directory for
> binaries. People will see that, and be annoyed.
Perhaps, but hiding things annoys many people more ... not a huge deal
as .config is not too hidden anyway ...
>
> Not
On Tue, 26.07.11 15:05, Przemek Klosowski (przemek.klosow...@nist.gov) wrote:
>
> On 07/26/2011 12:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
> >
> > This was added between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
> >
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bash.git;a=commit
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said:
> On 07/26/2011 12:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
> >
> > This was added between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
> >
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bash.git;a=commitdiff;h=02b20d810111e8b53bb98ad49fedd1d5
On 07/26/2011 12:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
>
> This was added between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bash.git;a=commitdiff;h=02b20d810111e8b53bb98ad49fedd1d583ce62e1
>
> because of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_
On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
>> In /etc/skel/.bash_profile they are added to the end and I think that is ok
>>
>> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
>
> This was added between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
>
> http
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:43 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> > On 07/26/2011 08:36 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > > On 07/26/2011 08:03 AM, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> > >> 26.07.2011, 18:34, "Andrew Haley":
> > >>> On 26/07/11 10
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 08:36 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 07/26/2011 08:03 AM, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> >> 26.07.2011, 18:34, "Andrew Haley":
> >>> On 26/07/11 10:22, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> >>>
> Since F15 ~/bin has been added t
81 matches
Mail list logo
