On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 21:39 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is obviously a good idea. Having it in the FHS would be ideal.
>
> Unfortunately, this sort of standardization seems to be slow by nature.
Someone suggested lobbying the app developers.
--
---
This is obviously a good idea. Having it in the FHS would be ideal.
Unfortunately, this sort of standardization seems to be slow by nature.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Interesting, but very specific to the caching example. There are other
> useful parts of the proposal, too: e.g. if libraries are in ~/lib then
> its easy to have $LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/lib work on multiple
> applications; also
> for an install
On Sep 20, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't say it's the only solution, but imho something has to be done to
> start fixing mess in ~/.
If you want to do something:
- useful
- which benefits every distribution
- requiring little effort
then start lobbying application d
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:01:56PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > What about home-etc[1] approach?
> Anything which requires a distribution to modify a very large number of
> applications is evil and not worth a discussion.
Everything which could make users' headache less nagging is worth
discussi
On Sep 20, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about home-etc[1] approach?
Anything which requires a distribution to modify a very large number of
applications is evil and not worth a discussion.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:32:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > PROPOSAL 2: ~/.etc/${package_name}/
> Renaming every configuration file is insane. Not even worth discussing.
What about home-etc[1] approach?
This way applications need patches, but it doesn't break anything, and in
the same time
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Interesting, but very specific to the caching example. There are other
> useful parts of the proposal, too: e.g. if libraries are in ~/lib then
> its easy to have $LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/lib work on multiple
> applications
I
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:05:32PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 07:55 +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:43:43PM -0400, Faré wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dear Debian developers,
> >>>
> >>>here is a
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:03:07AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
>
> > I like your idea. But i think that i think it should be better
> > to follow base-dir specification from freedesktop.org. It gives exactly
> > the same kind of dirname, but in
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 19, Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unlike Marco, I do see a lot of value in reorganising at least _some_ of
the 'configuration' files of users: seperating out .mozilla web caches
and .evolution IMAP caches greatly relieves the size of backups of ~/
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 07:55 +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:43:43PM -0400, Faré wrote:
Dear Debian developers,
here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 18:27 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 19, Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unlike Marco, I do see a lot of value in reorganising at least _some_ of
> > the 'configuration' files of users: seperating out .mozilla web caches
> > and .evolution IMAP caches
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 07:55 +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:43:43PM -0400, Faré wrote:
> > Dear Debian developers,
> >
> > here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
> >
> > PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
> > PROPOSAL 2: ~/.etc/${
On Sep 19, Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unlike Marco, I do see a lot of value in reorganising at least _some_ of
> the 'configuration' files of users: seperating out .mozilla web caches
> and .evolution IMAP caches greatly relieves the size of backups of ~/
> directories. If al
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 15:17 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Faré [Sun, Sep 18 2005, 07:43:43PM]:
> > Dear Debian developers,
> >
> > here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
> >
> > PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
>
> There is no point in moving everything
#include
* Faré [Sun, Sep 18 2005, 07:43:43PM]:
> Dear Debian developers,
>
> here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
>
> PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
There is no point in moving everything to foo style names, it is
just not worth the work. I like the current me
On Sep 19, Faré <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PROPOSAL 2: ~/.etc/${package_name}/
Renaming every configuration file is insane. Not even worth discussing.
> PROPOSAL 3: ~/.run/ ~/.lib/ ~/.share, etc.
As above, except that this even makes ~ more complex to manage.
> NB: I've send a similar proposal
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> I like your idea. But i think that i think it should be better
> to follow base-dir specification from freedesktop.org. It gives exactly
> the same kind of dirname, but in a more standardized way.
>
> Take a look at:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:43:43PM -0400, Faré wrote:
> Dear Debian developers,
>
> here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
>
> PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
> PROPOSAL 2: ~/.etc/${package_name}/
> PROPOSAL 3: ~/.run/ ~/.lib/ ~/.share, etc.
>
>
I like yo
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 19:07 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 08:21:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Faré wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL 3: ~/.run/ ~/.lib/ ~/.share, etc.
> > > Programs that insist to install stuff in the user's directory (such as
> > > openoffice, gimp, etc.), or tha
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 08:21:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Faré wrote:
> > PROPOSAL 3: ~/.run/ ~/.lib/ ~/.share, etc.
> > Programs that insist to install stuff in the user's directory (such as
> > openoffice, gimp, etc.), or that have runtime files (such as emacs'
> > .saves-*) should put this
Faré wrote:
> PROPOSAL 3: ~/.run/ ~/.lib/ ~/.share, etc.
> Programs that insist to install stuff in the user's directory (such as
> openoffice, gimp, etc.), or that have runtime files (such as emacs'
> .saves-*) should put this stuff in a proper hierarchy that mirrors the
> categories of the FHS, o
On Sunday 18 September 2005 17:43, Faré wrote:
> Dear Debian developers,
>
> here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
>
> PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
> All packages that keep a per-user directories caches of data that need
> not be archived/backed up should put it i
Dear Debian developers,
here is a proposal I submit for inclusion in the debian policy:
PROPOSAL 1: ~/.cache/${package_name}/
All packages that keep a per-user directories caches of data that need
not be archived/backed up should put it in ~/.cache/${package_name}/
instead of wherever they put it
25 matches
Mail list logo
