On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 20:32, Björn Persson <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote: [..] > Yes. There is no order that is obviously best for all purposes. > > I know at least one well-designed programming language where, if two > declarations have the same identifier but in different namespaces, and > both of those namespaces are imported, then neither declaration masks > the other. Instead they are both hidden so that the programmer has to > specify the namespace, making the code unambiguous. An equivalent of > this would be if the shell would look in all the directories that are > listed in PATH, and reject the command as ambiguous if there are > matching programs in more than one of those directories. The user would > then have to type a pathname to specify which program they want. That > would be safer, but less convenient – and of course an incompatible > change.
There is only huge logical flaw in above .. If someone is developer of course that could be a solution. However if such developer wants to install anything in /usr/local it NEEDS to have root permission to install something in this prefix. Why such person cannot just prepare prpm package(s) using own non-root account and install those packages as regular upgrade if such packages provides copy of some existing packages? Amnd/or why someone want to waste own time first to test something unpackaged to keep in /usr/local than at the end spend another chunk of time to package all this stuff into rpms? Where is the logic doing this that way??? Of course if someone is no-developer such person don't need this kind of things like /usr/local based paths in $PATH. Nevertheless EMBEDDING in regular OOTB distribution /usr/local based paths for (only) such propose is worse possible "adaptation" ever!!! Fedora or any other Linux distribution does not need to "support" every possible approach or habit used by all possible developers which are working on new or modified/adapted versions of some software. Because Fedora and other distros are using packages any development workflow supported by distro A should be using packaged software. Again: using /usr/local based paths means that someone already has root privs so such person can just prepare own package and install it. With packaged software as well is possible easy rollback any chang. Isn't it? Someone can even build own packages using public corp or travis-ci (in docker in this case) service without installing whole devel stuff on own system. So far .. Conclusion 1: Still there is no ANY REAL reasons why /usr/local paths must be present OOTB. Conclusion 2: If that is true as consequence Fedora should have only /usr/bin or bin for non-root users and /usr/sbin/:/usr/bin or /sbin:/bin as OOTB $PATH. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TNFYVAPIMTOSJEZJPLUHC5SZGZKFSKE3/
