Hi all! Sorry for missing the footnotes earlier... here they are:
[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523057 [2] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523174 [3] should be available at http://jens.triq.net/thumbnail-spec/index.html, but there is a permissions problem currently. [4] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/basedir-spec For me, the end goal is having less stuff in ~, and being able to simply delete ~/.cache and ~/.config when I suspect a profile issue is causing a bug I see. Right now I hunt all around to figure out where the appropriate files are to delete and such. I do think though that consistency between specs is extremely important, which is a good reason I think to amend the spec. For GNOME, I think that only libgnomeui and glib will have to be patched. I believe that every app which involves thumbnails uses these two libraries (though it eventually should be glib exclusively) to handle thumbnails. No app that I know of would have a reason to hard-code that path, but I can ask in bug [2] above to confirm that. In terms of migration, there are already several apps that need similar migration paths for their config data and cache data in order to convert to a basedir-compliant directory scheme. I don't imagine it will be that hard to find a place to put the migration code, but I'll ask in the bug [2]. I'll ask the two questions as a followup in the GNOME bug: what about data migration? What apps, if any, hard-code that path? Hopefully I'll get some info out of them and can post back. Do we need to talk to the KDE folks about this? Do they follow the thumbnail spec? Is there a process for notifying interested parties when the spec is updated? Sorry. I'm a n00b and don't know how that stuff works... Thanks everyone for the responses and enthusiasm! Martin On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Meyer wrote: > > > (cached) data". I feel that the thumbnail cache would fit in there. Is > > there a chance of getting the spec changed to point to > > $XDG_CACHE_HOME/thumbnails instead perhaps? Is it even open for > > discussion? > > > > It sounds like we have a positive consensus... > > I am working on creating a new docbook version of the thumbnail spec. Once > it is ready, I'll propose a patch to reflect the movement of the thumbnail > cache. > > - Mike > _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
