Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1
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,
Of course, I consider the FHS proposal to be common sense.
Imagine a large red swirl here.