Re: [gnome-love] Discussion about the proposed XDG gnome goals

[Gil Forcada <gforcada gnome org>]

+1 to everything that goes to more coherent system.

Rock on!

Cheers,

El dj 04 de 09 de 2008 a les 11:24 +0200, en/na Lionel Dricot va
escriure:
> (a copy of this message was sent to the gnome-hackers list)
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to discuss a bit further the proposition of an eventual XDG
> folder Gnome goal.
> http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders
>
> There's also a tracking bug :
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523057
>
> The concept of this Gnome Goal would be to follow the FD.o specication
> ( http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/ar01s03.html )
> who describes how to slip hidden folders into configuration, data and
> cache.
>
> This Gnome Goal would allow the following benefits :
> - a lot less cluttered $HOME (my mother will not cry anymore when the
> gtk file selector randomly choose to display hidden folders)
> - Make backups a lot more safe and easier. (you know that backuping
> your $XDG_DATA_HOME along with your files is enough)
> - A lot easier to reset a default configuration if you want/need it
> (and without any risk to loose informations)
> - Avoid some strange bugs that happens because you had a old version
> of some configuration file
> - A lot more of flexibility and portability because no path are
> hardcoded. You use the XDG library that does the job for you. If you
> don't want the dependancy, implementing it is only a few lines of
> code.
>
>
> Now, I want to push things further and make this an official Gnome
> Goal. A lot of applications tend to naturally switch (see the tracking
> bug) but other will not move at all if there is not official gnome
> goal. If only a few apps don't follow the XDG rules, it defeats the
> whole purpose of the specification :-(
>
>
> Applications
> ***************
>
> I see two kinds of applications :
>
> 1) Application that "only" need to migrate their own data. The XDG
> specs will mean that, at one point, the user will not be able to
> downgrade it version. But, anyway, it appears fairly often that a new
> version change the config file format. Backward incompatibility
> happens all the time, AFAIK. Do you see any really critical usecase
> where it would be a big problem ?
>
> For that applications, this Gnome Goal will be handled on a case by
> case basis. Some are already respecting it.
>
> 2) applications where the hidden folder is used by external
> applications and scripts.  The first step would be to identify which
> application is in this category. Then, we should ensure that an
> appropriate communication is done. Once again, the use of XDFfolders
> instead of harcoded path would be a huge benefit for everyone !
>
> Here, I suggest that each maintener of an application of the 2nd
> category post a list of things "that should be done before we can
> think about switching to $XDG". This way, we can progress step by
> step.
>
>
> Interpretation of the specs
> ******************************
> ***
>
> Another problem that I see is that no everybody understand the XDG
> specification the same way. Some believe that it's only a matter of
> moving the hidden directory in .config. Others believe that the
> specification doesn't apply to them even though they do exactly the
> same things by splitting their own directory in different files (see
> http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4911 - no offense intended).
>
> As a rule of thumb, I want to insist that $XDG_CONFIG_HOME and
> $XDG_CACHE_HOME should be deletable at any time.
>
> But to be certain and insure consistency, I propose to create a place
> where each maintener who is unsure can discuss it with other involved
> people. (a wiki page ? a mailing list ? a XDG council ? whatever. It
> might be not needed)
>
>
> Gconf
> *******
>
> Gconf seems to me the biggest problem. I've heard many thing about
> gconf so I'm unsure what is the best way. There are two alternatives :
>
> 1) Gconf is only there to store preferences. It means that all gconf
> will simply go to $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. All applications that have datas
> in Gconf (like evolution does) should be treated as bugs. Remember :
> XDG_CONFIG_HOME is deletable !
>
> 2) We agree that Gconf should be able to also store personnal datas.
> If it's the case, well, it would require a lot more thinking. But the
> first interesting to do should be to list applications that put data
> (and not config) in gconf, meaning "which applications will break if
> you delete the gconf directory" ?
>
>
> Making it official
> ********************
>
> My personnal hope is that this goal become an official gnome goal.
> There's a great need for a snowball effect to push the XDG folders
> specification. A lot of maintener (not necessarly in Gnome) are
> currently replying "I don't want to do it if nobody does it".
> Hopefully, the trend is changing (look at your ~/.config).
>
> But in order to do this, we have to "brainstorm" a bit in order to be
> sure that the overall quality of Gnome is never impacted and remains
> at least as high as it is right now.
>
>
> Well, in conclusion : as soon as Vuntz is convinced, we can be sure
> that it would be a rock-solid Gnome Goal.
>
> Lionel
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-love mailing list
> gnome-love gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
-- 
gil forcada

[ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer
[en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network
bloc: http://gil.badall.net