On 02/17/2015 04:49 PM, Jonathan Beatty wrote:
Absurd argument. I'm not a developer of Linux, although I use it all the time, and I put scripts and binaries wherever I please quite frequently. "Contempt of community" indeed.
First of all: Please don't top-post.Augustin probably goes off on a tangent here. Of course, power users will also use their own scripts and tools that aren't packaged. However, why using ~/config/non-packaged should pose any difficulty to them is beyond me. Moreover, ~/ itself is writable, so if you're really keen on short paths, simply place some symlinks there.
The main argument for having a ~/config/non-packaged instead of a ~/config/packaged is that almost all software people use will be packaged. Therefore it is just consequent to keep the paths of the majority of installed software short and convenient. Also this keeps the structure of /boot/system and /boot/home/config consistent.
Regarding how this decision affects old software: Software that is still maintained or whose source is available is not relevant to this discussion, since it should be packaged properly anyway to provide the best user experience.
That leaves old closed source software that is no longer maintained. Of this software unzip-and-use-anywhere applications aren't be affected. Only software that is required to be installed in the ~/config (or worse: the /boot/common) hierarchy and hard-codes directory paths is a problem. We -- most prominently Adrien -- have repeatedly asked users to report software that is now broken. Judging by the received *concrete* feedback there doesn't seem to be a lot of it that anyone misses.
CU, Ingo
