2010/8/11 Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com>:
> On 10 August 2010 20:46, Egor Vyscrebentsov <evy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good day!
>> Are there any thoughts on to support or not to support XDG Base
>> Directory Specification[1]?
>  I agree with the idea that one program (Freeciv is considered one
> program even though it has technically separate server and client
> executables) stuffing several files directly to user home directory is
> not nice behavior.
>  I have been thinking moving all the generated files under ~/.freeciv/
> hierarchy. Compared to XDGBDS it would have benefit of removal of all
> freeciv related files with single 'rm -Rf ~/.freeciv' command. That's
> not to say that I'm against XDGBDS. Could you sell XDGBDS to me, to
> list some pros (and maybe cons too)?

One argument is separation of application data into three categories:

* Cache (you can delete this at any time and it does no harm)
* Configuration (you can delete this to reset program to "factory state")
* User data (you probably don't want to delete this)

When you backup, you don't want to save caches so you exclude ~/.cache
 from the schedule.

For freeciv I think we only have:

* .freecivrc-2.2   as configuration in ~/.config/freeciv-2.2/  (?)
* User savegames, tilesets, maps etc as user data in
~/.local/share/freeciv-2.2/  (?)
* No cache files (?)

So my main argument is easier user data management as well as backup
and cleanup management for the user. For this to work, it is of course
important to divide the dotfiles into the right categories.


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to