XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg

[Peter White]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:04:39PM -0400, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> Mr. White,
> 
> You write:
> 
> > Be that as it may, one should not have to resort to such rather
> > extreme measures just to get sane behaviour back. And please stop
> > drumming for Flatpak. It does have its application but not for this.
> > I mean, come on, more layers of complexity just for this. Plus all
> > the downsides I do not want to discuss here, since they are out of
> > scope
> 
> Flatpak is a major—and standards-compliant—implementation of
> XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, alongside GNOME, KDE, etc.

And then some, or do you seriously want to tell me that that is *all*
there is to it? I am talking 'make && sudo make install' which is the
simplest, easiest and fastest way to get upstream software running for
testing.

> And you haven’t actually specified what your use case is; you’ve been
> consistently vague

Which is very much intentional, since it should not matter. The use case
of installing software to the very well known prefix /usr/local and it
overriding the *less* important version in /usr is sufficient to outline
the problem. And I do not want to go into specifics since the original
authors of an actual example at hand, which started me off, might not
want to be named and again, it should not matter.

> in a way that allows your text to maintain an unearned tone of
> righteousness and moral superiority.

I am very sorry, if you genuinely feel that way. I was and still is not
my intention. I try to be courteous and even put a smiley here and there
to make clear that this, while passionate, comes from a friendly
position and I am genuinely interested in improving things, since it has
been said, by others too, that there is an oversight in the spec.

But I will try to improve on that. Just let me add, that I am not a
native speaker, so I may not always hit the right tone, simply because I
do not know *all* about the language, and I somewhat dislike excessive
use of emoticons and hence try to use them sparsely.


OFF-TOPIC:
> You write:
> 
> > Yes, that is very much intentional, those are not “soft-wrap” but
> > real line breaks. You should read up on mailing list netiquette if
> > this is news to you. Yes, there is an RFC for that, and please don’t
> > go “fixing” my text.
> 
> As far as I know RFC 1855 is not part of any accepted email
> specification—i.e. the ones actually used by the more popular email
> clients—and several of the behaviors encouraged in it lead to
> undefined behavior on adaptive devices that did not exist in 1995,
> such as smartphones.

I am very sorry about that, but I won't change this, because then
someone else will feel offended. This *is* what is expected on mailing
lists and I do not want to get downgraded or ignored for being ignorant
of style.

Please also note that I am not alone in this, since rhkramer at gmail.com
seconded my prior hint at the netiquette to John Bollinger.

> Intentionally using formatting that breaks on the vast majority of
> computing devices in use is not “good etiquette”; this behavior is
> pedantic, condescending, and passive-aggressive, all attributes that
> directly violate the Freedesktop Community Standards, which are a much
> more important document than your dusty cultural artifact:

Those clients and devices should be fixed. I do not break anything
*intentionally* as this is what I believe is the expected behaviour on
any mailing list. And there are lists, where you would get burned for
ignoring said RFC.

And all I did, was giving a *friendly* as to why. I even offered to make
my default line length only 65 characters. But instead of replying if
that made it better, I get this rather uncalled for response one? I
mean, seriously, which device cannot handle 65 characters per line?
Should such a device then be ones primary means of mail communication?
Smartphones are a compromise on all fronts, so I respectfully refuse to
break with well documented and very much expected tradition to
accommodate those. Apparently there is no way to please everyone here,
anyways. I have made clear why. And I even said, that I *tolerate* if
people do not break lines. How is that for:

> > Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive
> > environment include:
> > 
> > 	• Using welcoming and inclusive language • Being respectful of
> > 	differing viewpoints and experiences • Gracefully accepting
> > 	constructive criticism • Focusing on what is best for the
> > 	community • Showing empathy towards other community members

Yes, check all of those. I feel like you just *want* to paint me as the
bad guy. And I would very much appreciate it, if smartphone users would
not expect the world to revolve around them.

> I’m CCing the conduct committee as a way of *gently encouraging you*
> to approach this forum in a modicum of good faith.

I welcome their perspective.

> Note: this is all good-faith, constructive criticism of your behavior,

Then why do I get the feeling that it is not? I do not see anything
remotely resembling "constructive".


Best,
PW