On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 7:49 PM <xdg-requ...@lists.freedesktop.org> wrote:
> Send xdg mailing list submissions to > xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > xdg-requ...@lists.freedesktop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > xdg-ow...@lists.freedesktop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of xdg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Elsie Hupp) > 2. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Eli Schwartz) > 3. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Eli Schwartz) > 4. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Elsie Hupp) > 5. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Peter White) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:04:39 -0400 > From: Elsie Hupp <x...@elsiehupp.com> > To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > Cc: cond...@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg > Message-ID: <18cd0df0-4d9d-4468-a0d8-eee335fdf...@elsiehupp.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > 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 all the downsides I do not > want to discuss here, since they are out of scope > > Flatpak is a major?and standards-compliant?implementation of > XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, alongside GNOME, KDE, etc. And you haven?t actually > specified what your use case is; you?ve been consistently vague in a way > that allows your text to maintain an unearned tone of righteousness and > moral superiority. > > You write: > > > Yes, that is very much intentional, those are not ?soft-wrap? but real > line breaks. You should read up on mailing list netiquette if this is news > to you. Yes, there is an RFC for that, and please don?t go ?fixing? my text. > > 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 1995, such as > smartphones. > > Intentionally using formatting that breaks on the vast majority of > computing devices in use is not ?good etiquette?; this behavior is > pedantic, condescending, and passive-aggressive, all attributes that > directly violate the Freedesktop Community Standards, which are a much more > important document than your dusty cultural artifact: > > > Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment > include: > > > > ? Using welcoming and inclusive language > > ? Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > ? Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > ? Focusing on what is best for the community > > ? Showing empathy towards other community members > > > If you dislike that the vast majority of the internet has moved on to > adaptive text rendering, I suggest you file an RFC about it, or perhaps > chain yourself to the front of the Google headquarters. Or, I don?t know, > you could use an email client with more normative text rendering? I assume > they do, in fact, make ones that work on dialup ANSI terminals. > > Oh the irony that you?ve expended reams of text complaining about how you > don?t like the long-standing XDG folder specification that everyone else > seems to accept, right before you turn around and point to an obscure chain > letter from the Clinton administration as if it were some sort of > inviolable scripture. > > I?m CCing the conduct committee as a way of *gently encouraging you* to > approach this forum in a modicum of good faith. > > Note: this is all good-faith, constructive criticism of your behavior, not > your character. As such I?m sure it should be no great difficulty for you > to take it to heart. > > Sincerely, > Elsie Hupp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:37:02 -0400 > From: Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> > To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg > Message-ID: <8a16f39d-9c57-1ae9-6531-dd232cd4c...@archlinux.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 saying "information" instead of > > "files" the authors did not want to limit themselves or the spec to > > files, which makes sense, given the elaborations about reading config > > files, let aside that it has been done since long before XDG anyways by > > shells for example. I think some people would do good by reading and > > understanding what was there already before "fixing" things that were > > not broken in the first place. This "information" vs. "files" stuff > > seems like one of these occasions. > > > > [...] > > > > There is no need for a new spec to make this happen since this is > > documented in shell manuals which were there from the beginning of time, > > UNIX time that is. > > > > And, need I remind anyone: "Those who do not understand UNIX are > > condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer > > A lot of thought went into it, so one should not go fixing stuff that > > was never broken. > > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > Did you say something about the sacred Unix? Who is reinventing what now? > > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: OpenPGP_signature > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 833 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: < > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210920/69d711bc/attachment-0001.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:41:00 -0400 > From: Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> > To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg > Message-ID: <83f1985f-36b3-8db5-bb96-9c7ad814d...@archlinux.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 1995, > > such as smartphones. > > > > Intentionally using formatting that breaks on the vast majority of > > computing devices in use is not ?good etiquette?; this behavior is > > pedantic, condescending, and passive-aggressive, all attributes that > > directly violate the Freedesktop Community Standards, which are a > > much more important document than your dusty cultural artifact: > > > The fact that smartphone applications are ill designed is not really an > indictment on any particular behavior. They also are lead contenders in > behavior such as: > > - adding advertisements for the app you used into your signature > > - top quoting the entire email thread, recursively > > Anyway. > > Your school of thought is in conflict with another school of thought, > both schools of thought have wide support in society, and for someone > who is so upset at the thought of people acting "pedantic, condescending > and passive-aggressive" 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. > > For the record, my cramped smartphone computing device has no problem > rendering Peter's excellently well-formatted quotes, but yours are, to > me, unreadable. > > On the other hand, your non-quote content is *mildly* more readable than > Peter's hard line wrapping, but not by very much -- both are relatively > quite readable. > > The real issue that basically destroys my ability to parse your replies > is the fact that it's essentially impossible to visually distinguish > between quotes and original content. The quotes are just a paragraph > beginning with a ">" on the first (reflowed) line only. > > My desktop client converts both of them to indented blockquotes... but > perhaps Google / Gmail doesn't have enough funds to pay for developers > as talented as the ones Thunderbird has? I genuinely have no idea, this > has always been a real puzzler to me. > > > > I?m CCing the conduct committee as a way of *gently encouraging you* > > to approach this forum in a modicum of good faith. > > > > Note: this is all good-faith, constructive criticism of your > > behavior, not your character. As such I?m sure it should be no great > > difficulty for you to take it to heart. > > > I am sure we are all delighted to know that disagreeing over mailing > list etiquette "with intent to make smartphones do worse rendering of > the messages" is the point at which you believe it is necessary to > summon the code of conduct committee in order to report > passive-aggressive condescension. > > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: OpenPGP_signature > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 833 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: < > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210920/8aeb6156/attachment-0001.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:14:49 -0400 > From: Elsie Hupp <x...@elsiehupp.com> > To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg > Message-ID: <ec7f04bc-5295-4bd3-a81a-376b06dbb...@elsiehupp.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > 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 find my technical generation incomprehensible.) > Blockquotes have always been annoying and awful, but they had stopped being > a constant thorn in my side until I joined this mailing list. They don?t > even seem to be a problem on other mailman mailing lists I?m on. > > > a ?dusty cultural artifact? > > Yes, this is a thing called ?shade?. > > > I am sure we are all delighted to know that disagreeing over mailing > > list etiquette "with intent to make smartphones do worse rendering of > > the messages" is the point at which you believe it is necessary to > > summon the code of conduct committee in order to report > > passive-aggressive condescension. > > Oh, the problem was that that dude took credit for the technical issue and > declared it to be righteous and true, all while complaining about a > standard nearly as old as the RFC he cited. The irony on top of the irony > is that the mangled blockquotes don?t even seem to be his doing; mailman > seems to be the one making them terrible for everyone involved. > > I CC?d the conduct committee so that he wouldn?t respond to me directly. > Obviously. Hence the ?gently encouraging?. Conduct committees are there for > the purpose of dealing with people you don?t want to deal with yourself, > even if nobody has really done anything wrong. > > This was the third or fourth response where he had been lecturing me > personally over nothing at all. Also for some reason John?s responses kept > ending up in my spam mailbox, so I had gotten six or so green-ink emails in > a row with nothing apparently in between them, and I was kind of suspicious > this guy wasn?t going to stop on his own. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:49:31 +0000 > From: Peter White <peter.wh...@posteo.net> > To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg > Message-ID: <20210920234931.GA123713@Roadrunner> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > 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 some surprises, when not > > > reading carefully. Now, I get that by saying "information" instead of > > > "files" the authors did not want to limit themselves or the spec to > > > files, which makes sense, given the elaborations about reading config > > > files, let aside that it has been done since long before XDG anyways by > > > shells for example. I think some people would do good by reading and > > > understanding what was there already before "fixing" things that were > > > not broken in the first place. This "information" vs. "files" stuff > > > seems like one of these occasions. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > There is no need for a new spec to make this happen since this is > > > documented in shell manuals which were there from the beginning of > time, > > > UNIX time that is. > > > > > > And, need I remind anyone: "Those who do not understand UNIX are > > > condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer > > > A lot of thought went into it, so one should not go fixing stuff that > > > was never broken. > > > > > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > > > Did you say something about the sacred Unix? Who is reinventing what now? > > Nice read, the point being? ;) I am not talking about "the split" and > /usr/local *is* specified and does make a whole lot of sense in FHS. And > that author does not understand what /opt is actually for, but that is > very much off-topic, so I won't digress any further. FHS is always a > good read, when in doubt. And there never was a need for *another* spec > that breaks its override characteristic. At least I fail to see it, and > nobody, so far, could provide a good reason for it. If there is need > for, say, *additional* data dirs, then specify *those* and do *not* make > XDG_DATA_DIRS default to /usr/local/share:/usr/share, since those are > already covered by FHS, which differs subtly but very significantly in > what happens if files with the same name exist in both, as I tried to > point out. FHS: file /usr/local/share/foobar masks /usr/share/foobar, > while, XDG mandates to also check /usr/share/foobar for information not > present in the former. > > Same goes for XDG_CONFIG_DIRS: if it weren't for the default (/etc/xdg) > all could be just fine. Yes, do encourage anything that is remotely > related to desktop software to expect/put the *least* important config > file(s) in ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg/<appname>, but leave XDG_CONFIG_DIRS empty > with *no* default, the app should just hardcode the expected location at > compile time. If the user/admin *then* has additional needs, they can go > nuts with XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, for all I care. Again, there is no equivalent > env var for the good old ${PREFIX}/etc, because that location is so well > known and documented that, for all intents and purposes, it *can* be > hardcoded, and that is what non-XDG apps have always done. > > So, staying in my ealier example, which I want to clarify in (some) more > detail here: > > 1. Read ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg/<appname>/<rcfile(s)>, if it/they exist(s). > 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. > DO NOT DEFAULT to anything. > 3. Read XDG_CONFIG_HOME. > (Since most important information is read and set last, the condition > that it takes precedence is satisfied) > > This is pretty much what already happens with *any* software I can think > of, but shells are very good examples, since they tend to document this > very clearly. The *only* addition the spec needs, or needed rather, was > XDG_CONFIG_DIRS but not the default. > > > Best, > PW > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > > > ------------------------------ > > End of xdg Digest, Vol 206, Issue 11 > ************************************ >