On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> One note here: The way I read the part of the standard
> you quote, it does not make any mention either of the
> use of either the '.d' or the 'rc' suffix
right, that was my personal opinion in tht matter.
> _My_ interpretation is that both are allowed
i agree, sorry, should have made that more clear.
> , though I have been told that the '.d' suffix
> is a recent invention and should is frowned upon as
> non-Unixy.
wierd. although i don't know anything but unix so i can't verify this,
but i doubt that this is true, given the historical existance of
/etc/init.d and /etc/rc{0,1,s,3,4,5,6,}.d
> Unfortunatley, I think that it's a bit late for
> removing the '.d', I expect there are quite a few
> users that have their own functions and completions in
> ~/.fish.d.
yes, i'll buy that argument :-)
> Even worse, there are definitely many users with a ~/.fish file, so a
> new directory name would cause a clash.
true, the upgrade might be a bit tricky, but i don't think it is
impossible. fish could detect the situation at startup and then warn the
user, and ask him/her to move things around (or even offer to do it
(just don't do it without asking))
> The current naming is partially there for historical reasons.
i thought (and i hope) fish is still in the stage of you being willing
to break compatibility to make things nice and consistant.
so i would hope that you would consider ignoring historical reasons.
> This arrangement is modelled after the bash layout
> using /etc/profile and /etc/profile.d/.
note that /etc/profile is not a bash but an sh configfile (and is used
by bash because it is sh compatible)
> I feel that a ~/.fish configuration file makes much more sense than a
> ~/.fish.d/fish file, it's too much to write for a file that you
> occasionally want to edit
i disagree. i find it much more irritating to have config files in
different directories. if they were all in one, i could cd to there, and
then have all fish config files at my disposal for convenient access,
while otherwise i'd have to think first about which file i need to work
with before deciding in which directory i should be.
also the other advantages of being able to have one item to copy around,
backup, remove, etc far outweigh the disadvantage of having a slightly
longer path for the main config file.
> As a sidenote, I'll mention that emacs uses ~/.emacs
> as a user accessible configuration file, and uses
> ~/.emacs.d for 'strange' files. And everybody here
> uses emacs and trusts the judgement of the FSF in all
> things, right? ;-)
no.
i use vi (and i even switched from emacs ;-)
seriously, that argument is flawed in as much as emacs is so old that
~/.emacs isa fixpoint on a unix system. and likely, ~/.emacs.d is still
optional. (/etc/profile.d is optional too)
.fish.d is not optional so the arguments for other .d dirs do not really apply.
greetings, martin.
--
cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix
offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world
--
pike programmer travelling and working in europe open-steam.org
unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at
administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org
Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
