Agreed. python-xdg also doesn't provide a fallback: https://github.com/Adys/python-xdg/blob/master/xdg/basedir.py
However I'd be more inclined to figure out if the *spec* not providing a fallback is a good idea. What's wrong with assuming .local/run or something? J. Leclanche On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk>wrote: > I'm thinking of adding support for $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR to PyXDG. However, I > want to check how to handle the case where it isn't set. From the spec: > > *If $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR is not set applications should fall back to a > replacement directory with similar capabilities and print a warning > message. Applications should use this directory for communication and > synchronization purposes and should not place larger files in it, since it > might reside in runtime memory and cannot necessarily be swapped out to > disk. > > *I've read a few discussions around Ubuntu's implementation of this, and > the consensus appears to be that there is no standard directory that will > reliably have the right properties. So, from 12.10, Ubuntu will ensure that > XDG_RUNTIME_DIR is set by default. > > Therefore, my thinking is to provide no fallback, so if the environment > variable is not set, the Python variable will have a useless value too. Or, > if implemented as a function, it would raise an exception. Applications > that need to handle this case would then have to handle it themselves. Does > that sound reasonable? > > Thanks, > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > >
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
