Fwd: Convention Over Configuration: A Way Forward?

Trans transfire at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 14:40:11 PST 2012

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Kevin Krammer <kevin.krammer at gmx.at> wrote:
> How would that improve upon any of the holdback reasons you cited above?
> Is there any public statement of developers in the groups "indifferent" or
> "uncertain" that they would support a fixed location but cannot be bothered to
> read a single environment variable?

Yea, the simple fact that they don't do it. It might seem trivial, but
to programmers every additional adjunct is another maintenance issue.
With XDG base directory standard it means eiterh rolling my own code
or having dependency on an external library. By using a fixed path,
the code need not have to worry about any of that. Thus making it much
easier to implement and support.

> How would the proposed inconfigurability make the location more widely known?

By gaining acceptance into FHS proper. FHS would have no problem
accepting fixed locations. Indeed, at this time the standard
explicitly designates the use of home dot files.

And I disagree with the term "inconfigurability". It's would still be
configurable, but via the file system itself, not the environment

More information about the xdg mailing list