+1 to everything that goes to more coherent system. Rock on!
Cheers, El dj 04 de 09 de 2008 a les 11:24 +0200, en/na Lionel Dricot va escriure: > (a copy of this message was sent to the gnome-hackers list) > > > Hello, > > I want to discuss a bit further the proposition of an eventual XDG > folder Gnome goal. > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders > > There's also a tracking bug : > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523057 > > The concept of this Gnome Goal would be to follow the FD.o specication > ( http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/ar01s03.html ) > who describes how to slip hidden folders into configuration, data and > cache. > > This Gnome Goal would allow the following benefits : > - a lot less cluttered $HOME (my mother will not cry anymore when the > gtk file selector randomly choose to display hidden folders) > - Make backups a lot more safe and easier. (you know that backuping > your $XDG_DATA_HOME along with your files is enough) > - A lot easier to reset a default configuration if you want/need it > (and without any risk to loose informations) > - Avoid some strange bugs that happens because you had a old version > of some configuration file > - A lot more of flexibility and portability because no path are > hardcoded. You use the XDG library that does the job for you. If you > don't want the dependancy, implementing it is only a few lines of > code. > > > Now, I want to push things further and make this an official Gnome > Goal. A lot of applications tend to naturally switch (see the tracking > bug) but other will not move at all if there is not official gnome > goal. If only a few apps don't follow the XDG rules, it defeats the > whole purpose of the specification :-( > > > Applications > *************** > > I see two kinds of applications : > > 1) Application that "only" need to migrate their own data. The XDG > specs will mean that, at one point, the user will not be able to > downgrade it version. But, anyway, it appears fairly often that a new > version change the config file format. Backward incompatibility > happens all the time, AFAIK. Do you see any really critical usecase > where it would be a big problem ? > > For that applications, this Gnome Goal will be handled on a case by > case basis. Some are already respecting it. > > 2) applications where the hidden folder is used by external > applications and scripts. The first step would be to identify which > application is in this category. Then, we should ensure that an > appropriate communication is done. Once again, the use of XDFfolders > instead of harcoded path would be a huge benefit for everyone ! > > Here, I suggest that each maintener of an application of the 2nd > category post a list of things "that should be done before we can > think about switching to $XDG". This way, we can progress step by > step. > > > Interpretation of the specs > ****************************** > *** > > Another problem that I see is that no everybody understand the XDG > specification the same way. Some believe that it's only a matter of > moving the hidden directory in .config. Others believe that the > specification doesn't apply to them even though they do exactly the > same things by splitting their own directory in different files (see > http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4911 - no offense intended). > > As a rule of thumb, I want to insist that $XDG_CONFIG_HOME and > $XDG_CACHE_HOME should be deletable at any time. > > But to be certain and insure consistency, I propose to create a place > where each maintener who is unsure can discuss it with other involved > people. (a wiki page ? a mailing list ? a XDG council ? whatever. It > might be not needed) > > > Gconf > ******* > > Gconf seems to me the biggest problem. I've heard many thing about > gconf so I'm unsure what is the best way. There are two alternatives : > > 1) Gconf is only there to store preferences. It means that all gconf > will simply go to $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. All applications that have datas > in Gconf (like evolution does) should be treated as bugs. Remember : > XDG_CONFIG_HOME is deletable ! > > 2) We agree that Gconf should be able to also store personnal datas. > If it's the case, well, it would require a lot more thinking. But the > first interesting to do should be to list applications that put data > (and not config) in gconf, meaning "which applications will break if > you delete the gconf directory" ? > > > Making it official > ******************** > > My personnal hope is that this goal become an official gnome goal. > There's a great need for a snowball effect to push the XDG folders > specification. A lot of maintener (not necessarly in Gnome) are > currently replying "I don't want to do it if nobody does it". > Hopefully, the trend is changing (look at your ~/.config). > > But in order to do this, we have to "brainstorm" a bit in order to be > sure that the overall quality of Gnome is never impacted and remains > at least as high as it is right now. > > > Well, in conclusion : as soon as Vuntz is convinced, we can be sure > that it would be a rock-solid Gnome Goal. > > Lionel > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-love mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net _______________________________________________ gnome-love mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
