On Di, 29.08.17 18:42, Johannes Löthberg ([email protected]) wrote: > + <listitem> > + <para> > + There is a set of preference ordered base directories relative to > + which executable files should be searched. This set of > directories > + is defined by the environment variable > <literal>$XDG_BIN_DIRS</literal>. > + </para> > + </listitem>
This appears redundant, given that there's already $PATH which pretty much does this. I think instead of the above there should be a brief comment, that $PATH is the search counterpart here... > <listitem> > <para> > There is a set of preference ordered base directories relative to > @@ -122,6 +145,12 @@ > <literal>$XDG_CONFIG_HOME</literal> is either not set or empty, a > default equal to > <literal>$HOME</literal>/.config should be used. > </para> > + <para> > + <literal>$XDG_BIN_HOME</literal> defines the base directory relative to > + which user-specific executable files should be stored. If > + <literal>$XDG_BIN_HOME</literal> is either not set or empty, a default > equal to > + <literal>$HOME</literal>/.local/bin should be used. > + </para> A problem with ~/.local/bin is that $HOME might be shared between systems of different archs, and thus any compiled binaries dropped in this dir might cause problems when used from other systems. I don't think this issue is reason enough not to have ~/.local/bin, in particular as many distros and systems already have it and it is a good idea to document what is already established, but I am very sure the spec should document the issue at least, and maybe suggests that scripts rather than arch-specific binaries are preferably placed there, or that if arch-specific binaries are placed there $HOME becomes arch-specific to some degree, which is probably not even a problem in 99.9% of the cases, and hence acceptable in the local case. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
