On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:38 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am
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
directory in
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 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 kind of
Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 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
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 a...@redhat.com 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
2013/11/1 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
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
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 a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am
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)
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 10:38, schrieb drago01:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 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,
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 a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On
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 in
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
On 11/01/2013 09:38 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 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
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 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,
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.asc
Once upon a time, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz 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
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
I get that some don't like $HOME/.local/bin; that's fine, agree to
disagree (I don't really care one way or the other about this one).
However, don't try to make it about security; that just isn't really an
issue here, no
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:38 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl
Hi,
Anyway what makes xdg specs a total wreakage is the way they've replaced
dotfiles with other dotfiles only to create prettyfied localized symlinks
à la windows (a bad case of over-engineering and aping another os without
understanding drawbacks)
Had they specified a ~/xdg/ root, with a
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi,
Anyway what makes xdg specs a total wreakage is the way they've replaced
dotfiles with other dotfiles only to create prettyfied localized symlinks
That's incorrect. The prettyfied localized symlinks are
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 10:12 +0100, drago01 wrote:
As for why they are hidden (and always have been) is because you
do not want to bother the user with them most of the time.
That being said, they could have not started by a ., but still be
hidden by the GUI file managers like Nautilus (for
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ 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
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
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 h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
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 h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
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 h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$
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
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 02:03, schrieb Chris
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
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 10:53, schrieb Alec
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
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 any random
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
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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 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:
Am
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
On 2013-10-30 15:05, Christopher wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 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
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 $PATH
inside the userhome and finally you agreed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2013 09:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir #!/bin/bash echo i could
rm -rf ~/ here
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
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 Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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'
Am 30.10.2013 18:59, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:15:11 +0100,
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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.
Am 30.10.2013 19:51, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:15:11 +0100,
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
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, given
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
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
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.
Okay, I'll
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's
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 $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile
On 2013-10-29 11:44, Alec Leamas wrote:
[cut]
BTW, don't we also lack a default, user-controlled directory for
manpages? Shouldn't ~/.local/share/man be part of user's default
MANPATH? Same usecase, basically same solution...
[Answering myself...] We, we don't lack that. As of f20, this
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
Not really. Anything that can write to that directory can also write to
shell init scripts, desktop environment
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
Not really. Anything that can write to
Am 30.10.2013 01:11, schrieb drago01:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
a *hidden* *user writeable* directory *in front* of PATH is
plain stupid security wise and there is not but and not if
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ 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
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
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
Exists for
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
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
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?
not that i
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:51:06 +0100
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 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
Am 28.10.2013 20:00, schrieb Michael Ekstrand:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:51:06 +0100
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 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 14:00:54 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
Yes.
pip install --user some python package
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
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
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_ unfortunate?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
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
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 some python package
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
On 28 October 2013 14:05, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:30:05 +
Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 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 some python package
The pip user scheme is to use ~/.local as an
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/bin
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 worse.
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 do. I
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net 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
75 matches
Mail list logo
