[basedir-spec] XDG_DATA_HOME and reboot-preserved read-write state?

[piegames]

Hi

> I don't see that in the spec, I just re-checked.  What makes you
> think
> it's read-write, more than write-once?  what part/sentences of the
> spec are your source on that?

Well, the spec states "There is a single base directory relative to
which user-specific data files should be written. This directory is
defined by the environment variable $XDG_DATA_HOME." I've never heard
of something being write-once in this context. What would that be and
what for? Either you have the write permission or you don't and if you
have it's up to you what and how often you write.

> e.g. when XDG_DATA_HOME just contains regular /usr/share
> like content that is shipped by the upstream application

I think you are misunderstanding the specification. Why should
XDG_DATA_HOME contain this data? Everything that is shipped by the
distribution is already available in the XDG_DATA_DIRS, that's what
they are for. Only relevant data shall be put into XDG_DATA_HOME.

> What does it take to get a new version of basedir-spec released in
> general — is that documented somewhere?

Great question. I've opened 
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/issues/70 but I think
the more correct way would be to discuss this in a new thread on this
mailing list.

Regards,
piegames

On Sun, 2021-02-07 at 18:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hi piegames,
> 
> 
> thanks for your reply!
> 
> 
> On 07.02.21 12:20, piegames wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > $XDG_DATA_HOME is for use data storage, and thus read-write.
> 
> I don't see that in the spec, I just re-checked.  What makes you
> think
> it's read-write, more than write-once?  what part/sentences of the
> spec
> are your source on that?
> 
> 
> > If the
> > spec doesn't make this clear to you, consider proposing a patch
> > that
> > makes the wording more explicit.
> 
> As I said, I'm happy to help improving the text, in general; we'll
> need
> common understand and an agreed direction to patch towards though,
> first.
> 
> 
> > There is
> > also `$XDG_STATE_HOME`, a recent addition that has not been
> > released
> > yet.
> 
> I found your commit at
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/commit/4f2884e16db35f2962d9b64312917c81be5cb54b
> now.
> 
> The text "but that is not important or portable enough to the user
> that
> it should be stored in XDG_DATA_HOME" seems misleading to
> me.  Portable
> is rather abstract and can mean multiple things — e.g. think
> cross-platform portability versus USB stick portable apps — and
> XDG_DATA_HOME data may just as well be _less_ important than state in
> XDG_STATE_HOME, e.g. when XDG_DATA_HOME just contains regular
> /usr/share
> like content that is shipped by the upstream application — re-install
> those files, done, zero value, not important content.  Would you
> disagree?
> 
> What do you think about dropping the bit about importance and making
> "portable" more precise, i.e. that two machines should have their own
> copy or so?
> 
> What does it take to get a new version of basedir-spec released in
> general — is that documented somewhere?
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg