> I don't have a strong opinion either way ... but I did think about it :-)
>
> Sampling them gives us two empty directories under ${SYSCONFDIR}/fish and
> another one containing an effectively empty (comment-only) configuration file.
>
> fish has been in ports for years, so everyone who has been using fish on
> OpenBSD
> until now either already created /etc/fish/stuff themselves, or is using
> ${XDG_CONFIG_HOME}/fish anyway.
>
> So in essence my thinking was: "why bother?"
As a long-time Fish user, my first thought was indeed "wait, there is
something under /etc/?", but it appears that since Fish 3.0, for
instance the Void Linux package also explicitly deletes those files in
its package definition because it is a comments-only skeleton. I would
very likely see no need to even @sample it given Fish usage patterns, at
least as per my casual observation.
