On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:09:55 +0200 David Engster <d...@randomsample.de> wrote:
> Dieter Plaetinck writes: > > yes, both the app data and user data (can) end(s) up in > > $XDG_DATA_HOME > > I see that in my .local/share as well. It's a complete mess. > > So what they tried to do is to separate configuration settings from > user data. But then they took a quick look at other systems (like OS > X) and wanted the possibility to override/add application data (like > fonts) in a local share hierarchy. I guess they also wanted you to be > able to install software locally by using '--datadir=~/.local/share > --sysconfdir=~/.config'. Now you got somehow everything, and every > application will just do what it deems right, or only implements a > subset of the spec, so that when you really want to profit from such a > complicated setup, it probably won't work anyway. hmm. with application data i meant data generated by the application, which is somehow related to the user and how the user uses the application. i haven't seen data which would usually be in /usr/local (like binary executables) in ~/.local/, probably because i never installed anything in there? > > personally I don't mind the mixed nature of data in $XDG_DATA_HOME > > and as long as apps don't automatically update manually written > > files, it's all good for me. > > The problem is that data is even more spread than it was before, and > often cannot be tracked anymore to the application which generated > it. So if you're worried about applications littering your $HOME with > dotfiles, you now have a littered .local/share and often do not even > know if you can delete that stuff. > > -David > I don't find my ~/.local/share problematic. there are only a handful subdirs which are not app-specific (mime, desktop-directories, applications, Trash, icons) and it's not a big mystery where they come from. Dieter
