adys.wh at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 14:31:18 PST 2012
No worries Thomas. I'll keep python-xdg as a separate project, it's not bad
to have an alternative. I mostly enjoy the mimetype api, for which I have
pretty extensive tests. Feel free to look around.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Kluyver <thomas at kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
> 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...
More information about the xdg