Thomas Kluyver thomas at kluyver.me.uk
Mon Dec 3 13:46:58 PST 2012

On 3 December 2012 21:08, Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

I think there are some security issues, although I'm not quite clear about
the details. The spec also says that the runtime directory needs to support
all Unix file-like features - named pipes, hard links, and so on. If the
user's home directory is on NFS, for example, that may not hold. My
understanding is that Ubuntu now creates an entire separate mount point (at
/run/user) to ensure the conditions are met.


P.S. Jerome, I haven't forgotten your suggestion that your python-xdg
implementation should replace PyXDG. But I'm increasingly convinced that
it's important to keep the API as stable as possible. It's already used in
a lot of places, and I don't think many projects are interested in dealing
with API changes. Even the refactoring I've done has accidentally broken a
couple of things. So I've been focussing on adding tests (
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xdg/pyxdg/tree/test ) and docs (
http://pyxdg.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html ). You're more than
welcome to help with that - perhaps we should merge some of the bits of
python-xdg that PyXDG doesn't yet have.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20121203/a34cc9b5/attachment.html>

More information about the xdg mailing list