Why .local/share ?

[Orion White]

Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Orion White wrote:
>> Hi--
>>
>> 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?

Orion