On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:14:49PM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > I find it intriguing that you insult people
> > right back by calling an *extremely* common convention in technical
> > mailing lists, a "dusty cultural artifact" and suggesting that it is
> > malicious behavior.
>
> I’ve been using
Correction, sorry I just noticed:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:49:31PM +, Peter White wrote:
> 2. Read in reverse order, so as to go from least important to most
-> important, files in XDG_CONFIG_HOME, if it is set, move on otherwise.
+> important, files in XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, if it is set, move
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:04:39PM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> Mr. White,
>
> You write:
>
> > Be that as it may, one should not have to resort to such rather
> > extreme measures just to get sane behaviour back. And please stop
> > drumming for Flatpak. It does have its application but not for
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:37:02PM -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 9/20/21 12:03, Peter White wrote:
> > The way I see it there will be two universes: FHS and a subtly different
> > XDG Base Dir Spec, which breaks with the former in peculiar subtle ways
> > and any dev used to the former is in for
t: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:03 AM
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
Caution: External Sender. Do not open unless you know the content is safe.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:09:00PM +, Bollinger, John C wrote:
> So what are you looking for a
> I find it intriguing that you insult people
> right back by calling an *extremely* common convention in technical
> mailing lists, a "dusty cultural artifact" and suggesting that it is
> malicious behavior.
I’ve been using email for 25+ years. (I have people twice my age and people
half my age
On 9/20/21 15:04, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> As far as I know RFC 1855 is not part of any accepted email
> specification—i.e. the ones actually used by the more popular email
> clients—and several of the behaviors encouraged in it lead to
> undefined behavior on adaptive devices that did not exist in
On 9/20/21 12:03, Peter White wrote:
> The way I see it there will be two universes: FHS and a subtly different
> XDG Base Dir Spec, which breaks with the former in peculiar subtle ways
> and any dev used to the former is in for some surprises, when not
> reading carefully. Now, I get that by
Mr. White,
You write:
> Be that as it may, one should not have to resort to such rather extreme
> measures just to get sane behaviour back. And please stop drumming for
> Flatpak. It does have its application but not for this. I mean, come on, more
> layers of complexity just for this. Plus
/local/etc/xdg
Caution: External Sender. Do not open unless you know the content is safe.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:50:45AM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > The way you describe it, it would be OK for any app to just parse the
> > config of any other. That just feels wrong, because
bout system-wide etc/xdg.
To summarize: The only way I see is to either hard code the location of
sysconf(file/dir) or to run local applications through a wrapper that
forces the environment to ignore /etc/xdg, i.e.:
$ env XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=/usr/local/etc/xdg
which is precisely what I would rather avoid, especially since every
user would have to do that on their system, if they compile from
upstream. Or upstream needs to provide said wrapper, which again is code
that should not have been necessary to begin with. :-/
Best,
PW
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:06:06PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 04:44:17 +, Peter White wrote:
> > I am having a hard time finding documentation about the best way to make
> > locally installed software recognize its config dir in
> > /usr/local/etc/xdg.
>
> One
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:09:00PM +, Bollinger, John C wrote:
> So what are you looking for at this point, Peter? I think we're well
> past any question of interpreting the details of the spec, and we've
> even delved a bit into its history and design goals and its intended
> usage model.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 09:46:22AM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > Yes, and then there is XDG which expects exactly that, which
> > then leads to other hacks to soften the isolation of said
> > containers, or the inclusion of files which the go out of
> > sync and out of date compared to what is in
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 at 12:28:43 +, Peter White wrote:
> Why would XDG_CONFIG_DIRS need to contain ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg for that?
> The app pretty much already knows where it is supposed to find *its own*
> system-wide config. The location of which *should* be in
> ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg//, yes, but
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 04:44:17 +, Peter White wrote:
> I am having a hard time finding documentation about the best way to make
> locally installed software recognize its config dir in
> /usr/local/etc/xdg.
One high-level approach to this is: give it sensible defaults, so that it
will work
> Yes, and then there is XDG which expects exactly that, which then leads to
> other hacks to soften the isolation of said containers, or the inclusion of
> files which the go out of sync and out of date compared to what is in the
> real /etc. If I need hard sandboxing to stop such behaviour,
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:50:45AM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > The way you describe it, it would be OK for any app to just parse the
> > config of any other. That just feels wrong, because app A should have no
> > business snooping in /etc/xdg/B/Brc. If app B wants to make such
> > information
rs on
>>> this topic.
>>
>> Good luck. At least I'm pretty sure Waldo doesn't read this list.
>
> Well, then what is it there for, if one cannot get information directly
> from the horse's mouth? But thanks for the hint. I will poke the authors
> to have a look at
ng the config files is from least
important, i.e. /etc/bashrc, to most important, i.e. ~/.bashrc, simply
overwriting values as they come, so the most important setting wins,
because it is guaranteed to be the last read.
> And I remember that at the time, there was a
> strong use case for user
mary when using a custom
prefix since the exact same thing has to be done with XDG_DATA_DIRS.
The only case where one doesn't have to add $PREFIX to XDG_DATA_DIRS
is the case where $PREFIX is /usr/local/, which is why I'm suggesting doing
the same with XDG_CONFIG_DIRS by adding /usr/local/etc/xdg a
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:19:33PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On jeudi 16 septembre 2021 18:48:41 CEST Peter White wrote:
> > But, /etc should be off limits for software in /usr/local, right?
>
> I don't think this assessment is correct.
>
> For instance, I certainly expect KDE software
On jeudi 16 septembre 2021 18:48:41 CEST Peter White wrote:
> But, /etc should be off limits for software in /usr/local, right?
I don't think this assessment is correct.
For instance, I certainly expect KDE software installed in any prefix, to
respect the global settings in /etc/xdg/kdeglobals
on the
install side to accommodate that.
Regards,
John
-Original Message-
From: xdg On Behalf Of Peter White
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:49 AM
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
Caution: External Sender. Do not open unless you know
configuration just to customize a few items.
Regards,
John
-Original Message-
From: xdg On Behalf Of Elsie Hupp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:40 AM
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
Caution: External Sender. Do not open unless you know
Message-
From: xdg On Behalf Of Peter White
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:44 PM
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
Caution: External Sender. Do not open unless you know the content is safe.
Dear list,
I am having a hard time finding d
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 01:47:51PM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> >>> I was hoping they would be, or is there a better way of contacting them?
> >>
> >> The authors all have individual email addresses at the top of the
> >> specification:
> >
> > I did notice that, but why ask them privately?
Dear John,
would you please reply on the list, it being the only recipient? By
putting me first, I don't get the list headers cannot do a proper list
reply.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 05:38:37PM +, Bollinger, John C wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> What XDG Base Directory does not particularly
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:51:05 PM Peter White wrote:
> P.S.: Please reply to the list, so the headers stay intact. I almost did
> not notice and would have replied to you privately. Also, please don't
> break my formatting. I am trying to obey the netiquette of limiting line
> length and
>>> I was hoping they would be, or is there a better way of contacting them?
>>
>> The authors all have individual email addresses at the top of the
>> specification:
>
> I did notice that, but why ask them privately? Mailing lists are there
> so a question can be answered *once*, and the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 01:21:15PM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> >>> I have pondered this for a while now and could also not find
> >>> anything via search engine or on this list, so I figured I actually
> >>> ask the ones who wrote the spec.
> >>
> >> I did not write the spec, but I have
>>> I have pondered this for a while now and could also not find
>>> anything via search engine or on this list, so I figured I actually
>>> ask the ones who wrote the spec.
>>
>> I did not write the spec, but I have implemented it. I'm uncertain
>> whether those who did write it hang around
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 02:49:40PM +, Bollinger, John C wrote:
> Your concerns seem to be focused mostly on how to deal with having
> multiple versions of the same application installed simultaneously.
Exactly.
> The challenges involved in making that work for applications that rely
> on XDG
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 04:15:07PM +, Bollinger, John C wrote:
> The value of XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, if set, is expected to be a string
> designating one or more directories to search for config files, in
> priority order. If multiple directories are specified then they are
> separated by colon
> The value of XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, if set, is expected to be a string designating
> one or more directories to search for config files, in priority order. If
> multiple directories are specified then they are separated by colon
> characters (:). This represents a search path, similar to the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:39:30AM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > XDG_CONFIG_DIRS acts like PATH does: first match wins, which
> > I would not expect to happen with conffiles.
>
> In general I believe the expectation is for the XDG variables with the
> plural suffix (i.e. ending in “S”) to return
> XDG_CONFIG_DIRS acts like PATH does: first match wins, which
> I would not expect to happen with conffiles.
In general I believe the expectation is for the XDG variables with the plural
suffix (i.e. ending in “S”) to return array values. String arrays in C are
weird, but it’s possible that
about the best way to make
> > locally installed software recognize its config dir in
> > /usr/local/etc/xdg. Of course, the quick and easy answer could be:
> >
> >$ env XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=/usr/local/etc/xdg foobar
> >
> > But that is not something one can ask th
Dear list,
I am having a hard time finding documentation about the best way to make
locally installed software recognize its config dir in
/usr/local/etc/xdg. Of course, the quick and easy answer could be:
$ env XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=/usr/local/etc/xdg foobar
But that is not something one can ask
39 matches
Mail list logo
