Re: Placement of config files for Plasma 5 and KF5-based applications
On 01/28/2015 08:43 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: There was a change to put config files into org.kde.foo, but that had to be reverted as it broke for setups like KWin where the configuration is not done in the same process. See: http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-frameworks-develm=139913479611824w=2 https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/117989/ (reverted) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Placement of config files for Plasma 5 and KF5-based applications
Am Mittwoch, 28. Januar 2015, 08:43:41 schrieb Martin Gräßlin: On Tuesday 27 January 2015 01:01:27 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: Hi everyone, first of all, I think it's a great step in the right direction that we're now putting our config files in ~/.config instead of ~/.kde(4), we're now finally standard-compliant. However, where we still could - and imho should - do better is with where exactly we put them. If I look at my .config folder, I see mostly folders there, and then a lot of KDE files directly on the top level. If everyone would do that, .config would be a huge mess of files and it would be difficult to find the one you're looking for. We should not be the bad boy here. The question is: Where should we put the files? Putting them all in a .config/kde folder again would be possible and would clear up the top-level clutter, but I think we could go further. In fact, I don't see a reason why config files from otherwise completely unrelated applications that only have in common that they were made by KDE should all reside in the same folder, whereas other applications each have their own folder. What could make sense is having e.g. everything from Calligra in one folder, or everything from KDE Edu or KDE Games. And I'd put all Plasma stuff into one folder. Actually, there already is a plasma-workspace folder on my system, which contains an env and a shutdown folder. Why not put Plasma-related config files in there? I also have a KDE folder with Marble Virtual Globe.conf and Sonnet.conf in there, and a kde.org folder with libphonon.conf and marble.conf. This doesn't make us look very professional, as it shows that there is currently no guideline for where to put our config files. I think we should change that! So, for me there are three questions: 1. Should we come up with guidelines for config file placement? 2. Does my suggestion above make sense or if now how should it be done instead? 3. If we want guidelines, how do we make them known and maybe even enforce them via code checking or some such? There was a change to put config files into org.kde.foo, but that had to be reverted as it broke for setups like KWin where the configuration is not done in the same process. Given that at least for KWin I do not want to do any changes as a) the risk of breakage is too high b) it's too much work (all code needs to be hunted down for usage of kwinrc (git grep shows 46 usages just in kwin, no idea how spread out it is in other places to configure kwin) or KSharedConfig::openConfig and similar) Wow. I thought there would be one define that the config file is there and there and it would be used in all places. c) I simply don't care whether users have a problem with ~/.config containing many files, it's a directory for applications, not for the user I think having all KDE related configs together in one place has an advantage: One can recover the KDE configuration with a simple rsync command from backup, without affecting any non KDE stuff. I did so in the past. It has been quite a while since I last did it, as KDE / Plasma configuration does not seem to be easy to break, but I still think its a valuable feature to have all KDE related things in one place. its not for the user is no reasoning I agree with. Most config files are plain text, there are even special options that may only be available in the config file and in case of any breakage that cannot be fixed within the GUI its nice to be able to fix things on the config file level. But well, there has been discussion about config file format on kde-pim mailing list as well, and whether to store them as binary data or not. And granted KMail / Akonadi and others store things in there that seems to me to be application *state* not *user configuration* and it may make sense to separate those. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Placement of config files for Plasma 5 and KF5-based applications
On Mittwoch, 28. Januar 2015 08:43:41 CET, Martin Gräßlin wrote: c) I simply don't care whether users have a problem with ~/.config containing many files, it's a directory for applications, not for the user I don't think this is much about scaring the user but how we behave wrt and align to xdg habits. To mie it seems the directories (most of them) in $HOME/.config specify the company name and there's indeed even a kde.org directory (contains marble, phonon and kcmshell stuff - no idea whether that's dated) plasma-workspace related applications could redirect that to some ~/.config/plasma/ dir and if google starts using KF5, they'd naturally want to redirect that to ~/.config/Google - but I would argue that stuff that writes via KConfigGroup is (w/o further specification) related enough in managing it's config through KDE technology to write into some ~/.config/kde dir. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Placement of config files for Plasma 5 and KF5-based applications
On Tuesday 27 January 2015 01:01:27 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: Hi everyone, first of all, I think it's a great step in the right direction that we're now putting our config files in ~/.config instead of ~/.kde(4), we're now finally standard-compliant. However, where we still could - and imho should - do better is with where exactly we put them. If I look at my .config folder, I see mostly folders there, and then a lot of KDE files directly on the top level. If everyone would do that, .config would be a huge mess of files and it would be difficult to find the one you're looking for. We should not be the bad boy here. The question is: Where should we put the files? Putting them all in a .config/kde folder again would be possible and would clear up the top-level clutter, but I think we could go further. In fact, I don't see a reason why config files from otherwise completely unrelated applications that only have in common that they were made by KDE should all reside in the same folder, whereas other applications each have their own folder. What could make sense is having e.g. everything from Calligra in one folder, or everything from KDE Edu or KDE Games. And I'd put all Plasma stuff into one folder. Actually, there already is a plasma-workspace folder on my system, which contains an env and a shutdown folder. Why not put Plasma-related config files in there? I also have a KDE folder with Marble Virtual Globe.conf and Sonnet.conf in there, and a kde.org folder with libphonon.conf and marble.conf. This doesn't make us look very professional, as it shows that there is currently no guideline for where to put our config files. I think we should change that! So, for me there are three questions: 1. Should we come up with guidelines for config file placement? 2. Does my suggestion above make sense or if now how should it be done instead? 3. If we want guidelines, how do we make them known and maybe even enforce them via code checking or some such? There was a change to put config files into org.kde.foo, but that had to be reverted as it broke for setups like KWin where the configuration is not done in the same process. Given that at least for KWin I do not want to do any changes as a) the risk of breakage is too high b) it's too much work (all code needs to be hunted down for usage of kwinrc (git grep shows 46 usages just in kwin, no idea how spread out it is in other places to configure kwin) or KSharedConfig::openConfig and similar) c) I simply don't care whether users have a problem with ~/.config containing many files, it's a directory for applications, not for the user Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Placement of config files for Plasma 5 and KF5-based applications
Hi everyone, first of all, I think it's a great step in the right direction that we're now putting our config files in ~/.config instead of ~/.kde(4), we're now finally standard-compliant. However, where we still could - and imho should - do better is with where exactly we put them. If I look at my .config folder, I see mostly folders there, and then a lot of KDE files directly on the top level. If everyone would do that, .config would be a huge mess of files and it would be difficult to find the one you're looking for. We should not be the bad boy here. The question is: Where should we put the files? Putting them all in a .config/kde folder again would be possible and would clear up the top-level clutter, but I think we could go further. In fact, I don't see a reason why config files from otherwise completely unrelated applications that only have in common that they were made by KDE should all reside in the same folder, whereas other applications each have their own folder. What could make sense is having e.g. everything from Calligra in one folder, or everything from KDE Edu or KDE Games. And I'd put all Plasma stuff into one folder. Actually, there already is a plasma-workspace folder on my system, which contains an env and a shutdown folder. Why not put Plasma-related config files in there? I also have a KDE folder with Marble Virtual Globe.conf and Sonnet.conf in there, and a kde.org folder with libphonon.conf and marble.conf. This doesn't make us look very professional, as it shows that there is currently no guideline for where to put our config files. I think we should change that! So, for me there are three questions: 1. Should we come up with guidelines for config file placement? 2. Does my suggestion above make sense or if now how should it be done instead? 3. If we want guidelines, how do we make them known and maybe even enforce them via code checking or some such? Looking forward to a fruitful discussion, Thomas
