On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:47:41AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> But I strongly dislike moving the
> users files. It's bad for your health.
which is why it may be better now than later.
it will only get worse.
> Absolutely, but there is still _some_ resistance
> against breaking compatibility.
right, and the resistance will be growing.
> I'm not yet convinced that the reasons given are enough motivation for
> a break. I'm not even convinced yet that the layout you propose is
> better than the one I propose.
well, let me try:
the real proposal (since the freedesktop effort has been pointed out)
is to move everything to ~/.config/fish/
~/.fish/ (or ~/.fish.d/) would be tolerable.
for the ~/.fish file, i'd request that you make it optional (make fish
search in both places)
> Yes, I know, but I always assumed that the profile.d
> part was a bashism
possible. that would only support my argument as the main point is that
profile.d is created because the original profile is unchangeable since
other applications depend on it. such dependency is not the case with fish)
> Both of these would require more key strokes with a new filename.
two extra keystrokes for ~/.fish{.d,}/config
three for ~/.fish{.d,}/fish
(and one more for both if .config/ is used)
> Different usage patterns, but both are reasonable, I
> guess. It's hard for me to see a solution that fits
> both patterns well.
true.
> > > And everybody here uses emacs and trusts the judgement of the FSF
> > > in all things, right? ;-)
> > i use vi (and i even switched from emacs ;-)
> > seriously
> Yeah, the 'everybody loves emacs and trusts fsf' bit
> was meant as a joke, sorry about that.
uhm, i did get the joke, (why else would i add a ;-) followed by
'seriously' to indicate that the comment before was not serious.
(i should have added a 'pretending to be offended' statement too ;-)
(to bad you can't see the miscieveous smirk i have on my face right now :-)
> The .emacs.d directory is automatically created when
> you enable certain emacs features. profile.d is
> created automatically by a basic install of Fedora,
> and very probably several other Linuxes
not sure, debian and ubuntu do not have this.
> (Linuces? Linuses?)
the linuses would be linus and his evil twin. (noone has heard of a twin
of linus, so if he exist he must be disguising as his brother and using
his name, which would be rather evil)
> The real question is if a .fish+.fish.d directory layout is stupid.
given that i really want all config files of any application moved from
my homedirectory to a subdirectory, my vote is on yes.
greetings, martin.
--
cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix
offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world
--
pike programmer travelling and working in europe open-steam.org
unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at
administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org
Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
