On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Trans wrote: > There is no compulsion in this. Its a "recommendation" or if that's > too much, a "suggestion". Developers could implement at leisure and > it's not hard to support both old and new --a nice slow migration > path.
Supporting both is (relatively) trivial; what is problematic is the migration from both to only new. I believe it is problematic enough that many programs will never get to supporting only new (or if they do, it will involve lots of manual work on the part of users). > how would this prevent using vcs home? VCS home directories means that automated migration from old configuration locations to new configuration locations cannot be done with a simple mv. > I think there is a fair bit of benefit. And I think many people are > starting too see it too. This thread alone is a good indication of > that. The benefits are still not clear to me. You move some configuration files from ~/ to ~/.config, but not all. Almost everything that is ~/.* and not a special file is already a configuration file anyway, so you can do most of what you would do with ~/.config to them directly. > Even so I think at least suggesting the directory standards in the > FHS home/ directory section is a very reasonable action at this > point in time, as it is becoming an increasingly recognized > practice. For new code, sure, but I'm primarily concerned about existing works that utilize ~/. Don Armstrong -- Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
