Re: Question: transitioning towards XDG Base Directory Specification?
2007/9/17, Jens Seidel <jensseidel@users.sf.net>:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:52:10PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've put a comment in my weblog today about storing game data in
>
> Where can I find it?
My weblog? here[1], but it's not too relevant for this tread anyway,
I've copied the comment in my mail :)
[1] http://www.miriamruiz.es/weblog/?p=113
> > $HOME, and I've received a really interesting comment that I'd like to
> > discuss here:
> >
> > """
> > It would be really nice if you would use the XDG Base Directory
> > Specification[1] instead of yet another dotfile directly in $HOME… the
>
> Dotfiles in $HOME should no longer be used IIRC after reading the FHS.
> Instead a subdirectory should be added (.mutt/muttrc instead of .muttrc).
Yup, I never do it without a dotdirectory.
> The XDG Base Directory Specification is maybe even more modern, I have to
> confess I don't know it.
>
> > specification is getting more and more common as it gets adopted by
> > more and more applications and distros.
> >
> > 1. http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html
> > """
> >
> > Do you think we should try to move all our patched games to use this
> > spec instead of creating more dotfiles directly in $HOME?
>
> At least we should avoid writing dotfiles ...
Yup, but is it worth moving forward to support XDG? I never heard of
it before today either, but if it comes from freedesktop it might make
sense.
Miry
Reply to: