Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)
Dear Debian Policy Maintainers, Policy section 9.1.1 (File System Structure) [0] talks about per-user configuration files and says: «It is recommended that such files start with the '.' character (a dot file), and if an application needs to create more than one dot file then the preferred placement is in a subdirectory with a name starting with a '.' character, (a dot directory)». As you probably know, there is now a trend [2][3] of placing all configuration files into the same directory, which defaults to ~/.config/ but can be changed, as well as two separate directories for user data and recoverable/non-important data (~/.local/share, ~/.cache). This is described in the XDG Base Directory specification [1], and I believe it is a big advancement in terms of cleaning up the mess that home directories have become and has the added benefit of separating data you may want to backup (config, data) from random junk (cache). I'd like to suggest the quoted policy statement be updated to recommend, or at least mention, said specification. [0] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html [1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html [2] https://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders [3] http://techbase.kde.org/KDE_System_Administration/XDG_Filesystem_Hierarchy Kind regards, -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 P.S.: Please keep me CC'd since I'm not subscribed to this list. P.S.2: I'm sorry if this has already been discussed before. I've tried doing a search on debbug and this mailing lists' archives and it didn't turn up anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=keg4w8q7beqwxqah5jdejnw6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)
On Thu, 19 May 2011 at 15:15:39 +0200, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) wrote: As you probably know, there is now a trend [2][3] of placing all configuration files into the same directory, which defaults to ~/.config/ but can be changed, as well as two separate directories for user data and recoverable/non-important data (~/.local/share, ~/.cache). I'm broadly in favour of this, but for the data and config parts, just using the new paths isn't enough - you also need to either migrate data/configuration from legacy locations, or read both. As a result, this change should happen somewhat carefully, and upstream-first. (https://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders is the equivalent of this request for GNOME.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110519134558.ga3...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)
On 19/05/11 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote: I think it's going to be very difficult to do this through Policy. This would mean Debian-specific patches to a *LOT* of software. Usually we only put things like this into Policy once they're almost entirely adopted already, to clean up the stragglers. The best approach with this sort of thing would be to try to convince upstreams first, so that Debian doesn't have to create microforks of practically everything. It's only a recommendation, so we don't need to fork anything (and we shouldn't). But the recommendation is already there, so changing it does no harm (we're not going to change this downstream as we're not going to change software that use different dirs than ~/.myprogram). Or if recommending the XDG directory is bad not because the XDG directory itself but because we shouldn't be changing this in Debian, I wonder how that is different to what Policy 9.1.1 currently recommends :) Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dd56198.9000...@debian.org
Re: Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org writes: On 19/05/11 19:30, Russ Allbery wrote: I think it's going to be very difficult to do this through Policy. This would mean Debian-specific patches to a *LOT* of software. Usually we only put things like this into Policy once they're almost entirely adopted already, to clean up the stragglers. The best approach with this sort of thing would be to try to convince upstreams first, so that Debian doesn't have to create microforks of practically everything. It's only a recommendation, so we don't need to fork anything (and we shouldn't). There isn't really such a thing as a recommendation in that sense in Policy. If it's in Policy, it mostly becomes a bug in a package that doesn't follow it. (There are a few exceptions to this, but they're always awkward.) Usually we push more best-practice sorts of recommendations off to the Developer's Reference instead. But the recommendation is already there, so changing it does no harm (we're not going to change this downstream as we're not going to change software that use different dirs than ~/.myprogram). Or if recommending the XDG directory is bad not because the XDG directory itself but because we shouldn't be changing this in Debian, I wonder how that is different to what Policy 9.1.1 currently recommends :) Policy recommends grouping dotfiles together into directories if a given program has more than one, which is one of those things that I mentioned in my earlier message as one of those things that's already largely adopted across the upstream source bases already, so Debian is just making a statement about catching stragglers. By comparison, nearly none of the software that I use currently uses the XDG home directory layout, so recommending that would be a much different sort of step. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjsaqwm6@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)
Hi Russ, Thanks for your prompt answer. 2011/5/19 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org: I think it's going to be very difficult to do this through Policy. This would mean Debian-specific patches to a *LOT* of software. I agree. Usually we only put things like this into Policy once they're almost entirely adopted already, to clean up the stragglers. My concern is mostly about people (writing new applications or whatever) acting upon the recommendation in the policy of using dot-files directly in $HOME, so my request isn't as much about trying to enforce everyone to patch their packages (which would indeed mean a lot of work) but just to have that point clarified and make people aware of the alternative. Anyway, it's up to you. If you prefer to leave it as it is for now I can live with that :). Regards, -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktim5yau2pxatgz4zcbm5arrmlsq...@mail.gmail.com
