adys.wh at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 13:08:46 PST 2012
Agreed. python-xdg also doesn't provide a fallback:
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?
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Kluyver <thomas at 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
> *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?
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg