unity-design team mailing list archive

["Bastian, Waldo" <waldo.bastian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Klimonda [mailto:kklimonda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:35 PM
> To: Bastian, Waldo
> Cc: Mark Shuttleworth; ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Waldo Bastian; Charles
> Kerr
> Subject: RE: [Ayatana] XDG Base Directory spec
> 
> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 13:30 -0700, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Shuttleworth [mailto:mark@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:22 PM
> > > To: Krzysztof Klimonda
> > > Cc: ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Waldo Bastian
> > > Subject: Re: [Ayatana] XDG Base Directory spec
> > >
> > > On 25/03/10 20:05, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the pointer. I commented on the bug that I don't understand
> > > the confusion. Have cc'd Waldo Bastian, the author of the spec, to ask
> > > if he can shed any light. It does seem like the guidance as to what
> goes
> > > into which directory could be clarified and examples provided,
> > > especially for tricky things. Maybe that would justify a 0.9 version
> of
> > > the spec :-)
> > >
> > > Waldo?
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > XDG Base Directory spec is intended for use by other specification. For
> example the XDG Menu specification and Autostart specification refer to
> the XDG Base Directory specification instead of reinventing their own
> filesystem locations / hierarchy.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Waldo
> Hey,
> 
> Thanks for your comment.
> 
> Does it mean that there should be yet another specification for data
> saved by applications that do not fit into any of the "base
> directories"?

If there is a reason to care where applications save all or part of their data (beyond the FHS), then one could write a spec that outlines where applications should put what and one could express those locations using the XDG Base Directory spec.

One reason to care about file locations is if multiple independent applications need to be able to access the same information.

Cheers,
Waldo