Why .local/share ?
orionwhite at gmx.com
Wed Nov 12 07:24:49 PST 2008
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Orion White wrote:
>> I've begun to use the XDG base directory standard for my projects, and I
>> am very happy with it.
>> However, I do not understand the rational behind .local/share. I have
>> searched the Internet for some explanation, but to no avail.
>> Why is .local/share not just .local/ or .share/? Why the two levels? And
>> what is supposed to go in .local/ other than share/?
> Think of .local/lib, .local/bin, .local/libexec or .local/include. Also
> note that many systems already append "share" to their prefixes (/usr,
> /usr/local), so it was probably easier to reuse the code.
Okay. That makes some sense. I didn't understand that myself b/c, as
others have said, why isn't .config under .local/etc then? I like this
standard but it does seem like it's not 100% thought out yet.
To be honest, I sort of prefer the idea of .share/ instead of
.local/share/, as it means once less directory level, and I don't mind a
few more hidden directories, it's still beats the hell out the 50 I have
in my home directory now.
Also, I've been trying to analogize the standard to project directories.
So for instance, if I have a project test tool I created, I'd but it's
configuration in fooproj/.config/testtoolrc; instead of what people do
toady which is fooproj/.testtoolrc. So I think this standard has
potential in this area too.
One interesting idea from this: Would it make sense to add
"./.local/bin" to $PATH?
More information about the xdg