On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:07:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > 5)== > > > > > > User specific configuration files for applications are stored in the > > > user's > > > home directory in a file that starts with the '.' character (a "dot > > > file"). If > > > an application needs to create more than one dot file then they should be > > > placed in a subdirectory with a name starting with a '.' character, (a > > > "dot > > > directory"). In this case the configuration files should not start with > > > the '.' > > > character. > > > > > > I have no idea if we comply, but this is a new requirement. > > > > I think we do. This is common sense anyway, most applications I've seen > > do it that way. > > It is probably a good idea to mention this either on policy itself (just to > remind people), or on the packaging guide and maintainers reference. This > requirement is something the maintainers have to watch out for... > > Somehow, I just know we will have someone complaining of this FHS > requirement soon.
If you ask... The problem with this requirement is that the path to such configuration files is the responsibility of the upstream authors and not of the distributors. Forcing the distributors to choose a name is likely to lead to several FHS compliant systems using incompatible names for such files which is against the goal of the FHS. I would like to note that several programs create files or directories with names lacking the leading '.' that the FHS require: ~/GNUstep, ~/Desktop, ~/lynx_bookmarks.html. Of course, I consider the FHS proposal to be common sense. Cheers -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
