On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 09:09 +0800, Chris McCormick wrote: > On 26/09/15 20:25, Miller Puckette wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 06:44:54PM +0800, Chris McCormick wrote: > >> To my mind ~/pd/extra is not that different to ~/pd-externals in that it > >> still forces the user to have a non-hidden folder in their home directory. > >> Whenever applications do this I find it mildly annoying. > > > > I thing for "settings" a hidden file is appropriate (e.g., ".pdsettings") > > but > > for libraries you want them visible - but precisely where would depend how > > you > > organize your files so should be settable. > > Good point, and Linux doesn't have anything like OSX's ~/Library folder. > > > My reason for suggesting putting them in "pd/extra" is that you already put > > "pd" somewhere (and presumably chose where to put it) and > > if you relocate pd later the extra files will follow. Also, you can then > > have different versions of Pd with different libraries loaded. > > Oh I see - you mean as a default just to use the "extra" folder relative > to wherever the Pd binary is. > > From the perspective of the deken plugin, as long as it can ask Pd > where the files are supposed to be stored and the location is write-able > by the current user then it can work. I agree with IOhanne's points > though, and I'd prefer ~/.pd/extra over ~/pd-externals and over nothing > at all.
I second that. Reasons why I prefer the 'pd' dir (or whatever name it finally will be) to be hidden: * It is easy to make a visible symlink to a hidden folder. There is no similarly easy way I can think of to hide a visible folder. * It's pretty standard on Linux and I'd like Pd to adhere to some standards. There is the freedesktop.org way of a file hierarchy with ~/.config and ~/.local, while putting stuff into ~/.programname is common, too. I cannot think of many programs that force you to have a visible folder in your home directory. * Pd already uses the OS specific standards on OS X and Windows, but not so much on Linux. '~/pd-externals' is just strange, but ~/pd/extra is not less strange. What justifies to put (non-admin) user installed libraries into an extra folder on Linux, when at the same time it's <some-prefix>/pd on Windows and OS X? Treating Linux specially adds complexity I can't really see the reasoning behind. Roman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
