unity-design team mailing list archive

[Krzysztof Klimonda <kklimonda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 19:49 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Also from Jo:
> 
> > In order to clean up, perhaps Canonical and Ubuntu would consider a much louder support for XDG Base Directory Specification? Many developers are hesitant to follow it, perhaps a strong leadership is required there as well?
> >   
> 
> This seems like a real win, too. Looks like quite a few apps do support it.
> 
> This sort of thing is useful for us to say "is a requirement for main
> inclusion in the next LTS", to try an accelerate adoption.
> 
Hey,

Thanks for rising this subject on the mailing list. I'd love to read
some discussion about implementing this specifiation.

Although I'm a big fan of the XDG Base Dir specification there are few
ambiguities that should be resolved before we ask everyone to follow it

The thing I have on my mind is described in the
http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/466541 (most important is the 4th comment
made by the Transmission developer).
If XDG_DATA_HOME is supposed to be used just as the /usr/share/ is used
then it is currently misused by applications and the whole specification
is questionable (if people are following it only partially then it
creates just as much confusion as if they weren't following it at all).
If it's supposed to be a directory where developers are supposed to save
all files that are not configuration but are important to the
application then it also should be stated clearly.

Cheers

-- 
Krzysztof Klimonda <kklimonda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part