On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Randy, > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 08:52:44AM -0400, Randy Kramer wrote: >> I agree that the XDG Base Specification has little if anything with >> respect to addressing migration concerns. > >> Well, except that I can envision a migration path--I don't see anything >> that precludes a developer from starting to follow the XDG Base >> Specification such that, sometime down the road, when enough >> applications support it, it can be adopted. I mean, the first step >> seems to be the developers specifying things using the symbolic >> names /locations (like $XDG_DATA_HOME) instead of specific locations >> (like /home/<username>). > >> I guess I would ask you, what does having this as a recommendation do to >> you (or Debian) that makes you want to object to it? I'm guessing that >> it may force you (or Debian) to do something (else, why would you >> object)? > > The concern is not that Debian will be forced to do something; my concern is > that, by having the FHS, which is a widely recognized standard, recommend > the XDG spec, this will be used to persuade upstreams of various > applications already in use to start to follow that spec without regard to > the migration issues, resulting in a poor experience for users. > > In general, the *only* parts of the XDG base spec which I think it's > reasonable for existing software to adopt are $XDG_CACHE_HOME and > $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, because these relate to disposable data and there's a > distinct benefit to switching (namely, making it simpler to exclude these > files from a backup policy). For the rest of the spec, a migration is more > trouble than it's worth, and the FHS should take pains to avoid implying > that such a migration is a good idea.
What migration issues? _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
