Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information
On Tue, 03 July 2001, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:25:25PM -0700, sandy pond wrote:
> > Presently the storage location for user-specific
> > package configuration information is in user home
> > directories in many various "." files or
> > sub-directories (e.g. ".vimrc", ".gnome"). Please
> > consider the following possibilities:
> You're proposing that we make a fairly fundamental change to where
> most packages place their user-specific configuration information,
> which is normally in the top-level of the user's home directory.
> While there's some merit to making changes such like this, there are a
> couple of things to consider. (1) most packages will not be LSB
> compliant packages; packages provided by distributions don't have to
> follow the LSB guidelines.
This is precisely why I think the LSB would be a good starting point.
The LSB compliant packages will lead to other packages following in
time. We need to start somewhere, and the present scheme will not
last forever. The LSB guideline doesn't even have to be "required"
for home directories it could be a "recommendation". I think that if
a common place is at least defined, then developers will start to
use it because it makes so much sense.
>(2) The backwards compatibility challenges
> here are quite significant; most users and programs expect that
> certain files, such as .bashrc, .emacs.el, .newsrc, etc., live in the
> top-level home directory.
Not really. As you point out above, these programs will not be
in LSB compliant packages at the start (or ever). And if, for
instance, someone wants to provide a LSB compliant Emacs package,
then the packager would be responsible for restructuring the
user-specific configuration information. Some older programs will
never be restructured, for instance bash, ... but at least the
problem will not be propagated for a new generation of programs or
for the LSB compliment packages.
Additionally, logical links to the top-level home directory could
be permitted for older programs that are put in LSB compliant
packages and need backward compatibility with other older programs.
> (3) Often, dot files are shared between
> multiple packages. Examples include .newsrc, .mime.types, and so on.
First, as above, these programs may never be put in LSB compliant
Secondly, my understanding is that if a package is to be LSB
compliant then the package can not depend on these files to begin
The proposal is not meant as an immediate cure for the problem ...
only to get the process of providing a better structuring for
user-specific configuration information started.
Best Regards, Keith Adamson
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!