xdg Digest, Vol 206, Issue 11

[Timothy]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 7:49 PM <xdg-request at lists.freedesktop.org> wrote:

> Send xdg mailing list submissions to
>         xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         xdg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         xdg-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of xdg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Elsie Hupp)
>    2. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Eli Schwartz)
>    3. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Eli Schwartz)
>    4. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Elsie Hupp)
>    5. Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg (Peter White)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:04:39 -0400
> From: Elsie Hupp <xdg at elsiehupp.com>
> To: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: conduct at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
> Message-ID: <18CD0DF0-4D9D-4468-A0D8-EEE335FDFB05 at elsiehupp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> 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 you haven?t actually
> specified what your use case is; you?ve been consistently vague in a way
> that allows your text to maintain an unearned tone of righteousness and
> moral superiority.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> > 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
>
>
> If you dislike that the vast majority of the internet has moved on to
> adaptive text rendering, I suggest you file an RFC about it, or perhaps
> chain yourself to the front of the Google headquarters. Or, I don?t know,
> you could use an email client with more normative text rendering? I assume
> they do, in fact, make ones that work on dialup ANSI terminals.
>
> Oh the irony that you?ve expended reams of text complaining about how you
> don?t like the long-standing XDG folder specification that everyone else
> seems to accept, right before you turn around and point to an obscure chain
> letter from the Clinton administration as if it were some sort of
> inviolable scripture.
>
> I?m CCing the conduct committee as a way of *gently encouraging you* to
> approach this forum in a modicum of good faith.
>
> Note: this is all good-faith, constructive criticism of your behavior, not
> your character. As such I?m sure it should be no great difficulty for you
> to take it to heart.
>
> Sincerely,
> Elsie Hupp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:37:02 -0400
> From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>
> To: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
> Message-ID: <8a16f39d-9c57-1ae9-6531-dd232cd4ce8e at archlinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 9/20/21 12:03, Peter White wrote:
> > The way I see it there will be two universes: FHS and a subtly different
> > XDG Base Dir Spec, which breaks with the former in peculiar subtle ways
> > and any dev used to the former is in for some surprises, when not
> > reading carefully. Now, I get that by saying "information" instead of
> > "files" the authors did not want to limit themselves or the spec to
> > files, which makes sense, given the elaborations about reading config
> > files, let aside that it has been done since long before XDG anyways by
> > shells for example. I think some people would do good by reading and
> > understanding what was there already before "fixing" things that were
> > not broken in the first place. This "information" vs. "files" stuff
> > seems like one of these occasions.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > There is no need for a new spec to make this happen since this is
> > documented in shell manuals which were there from the beginning of time,
> > UNIX time that is.
> >
> > And, need I remind anyone: "Those who do not understand UNIX are
> > condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer
> > A lot of thought went into it, so one should not go fixing stuff that
> > was never broken.
>
>
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
>
> Did you say something about the sacred Unix? Who is reinventing what now?
>
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: OpenPGP_signature
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210920/69d711bc/attachment-0001.sig
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:41:00 -0400
> From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>
> To: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
> Message-ID: <83f1985f-36b3-8db5-bb96-9c7ad814dcab at archlinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 9/20/21 15:04, Elsie Hupp wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > 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:
>
>
> The fact that smartphone applications are ill designed is not really an
> indictment on any particular behavior. They also are lead contenders in
> behavior such as:
>
> - adding advertisements for the app you used into your signature
>
> - top quoting the entire email thread, recursively
>
> Anyway.
>
> Your school of thought is in conflict with another school of thought,
> both schools of thought have wide support in society, and for someone
> who is so upset at the thought of people acting "pedantic, condescending
> and passive-aggressive" I find it intriguing that you insult people
> right back by calling an *extremely* common convention in technical
> mailing lists, a "dusty cultural artifact" and suggesting that it is
> malicious behavior.
>
> For the record, my cramped smartphone computing device has no problem
> rendering Peter's excellently well-formatted quotes, but yours are, to
> me, unreadable.
>
> On the other hand, your non-quote content is *mildly* more readable than
> Peter's hard line wrapping, but not by very much -- both are relatively
> quite readable.
>
> The real issue that basically destroys my ability to parse your replies
> is the fact that it's essentially impossible to visually distinguish
> between quotes and original content. The quotes are just a paragraph
> beginning with a ">" on the first (reflowed) line only.
>
> My desktop client converts both of them to indented blockquotes... but
> perhaps Google / Gmail doesn't have enough funds to pay for developers
> as talented as the ones Thunderbird has? I genuinely have no idea, this
> has always been a real puzzler to me.
>
>
> > I?m CCing the conduct committee as a way of *gently encouraging you*
> > to approach this forum in a modicum of good faith.
> >
> > Note: this is all good-faith, constructive criticism of your
> > behavior, not your character. As such I?m sure it should be no great
> > difficulty for you to take it to heart.
>
>
> I am sure we are all delighted to know that disagreeing over mailing
> list etiquette "with intent to make smartphones do worse rendering of
> the messages" is the point at which you believe it is necessary to
> summon the code of conduct committee in order to report
> passive-aggressive condescension.
>
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: OpenPGP_signature
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210920/8aeb6156/attachment-0001.sig
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:14:49 -0400
> From: Elsie Hupp <xdg at elsiehupp.com>
> To: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
> Message-ID: <EC7F04BC-5295-4BD3-A81A-376B06DBBBFE at elsiehupp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> > I find it intriguing that you insult people
> > right back by calling an *extremely* common convention in technical
> > mailing lists, a "dusty cultural artifact" and suggesting that it is
> > malicious behavior.
>
> I?ve been using email for 25+ years. (I have people twice my age and
> people half my age find my technical generation incomprehensible.)
> Blockquotes have always been annoying and awful, but they had stopped being
> a constant thorn in my side until I joined this mailing list. They don?t
> even seem to be a problem on other mailman mailing lists I?m on.
>
> > a ?dusty cultural artifact?
>
> Yes, this is a thing called ?shade?.
>
> > I am sure we are all delighted to know that disagreeing over mailing
> > list etiquette "with intent to make smartphones do worse rendering of
> > the messages" is the point at which you believe it is necessary to
> > summon the code of conduct committee in order to report
> > passive-aggressive condescension.
>
> Oh, the problem was that that dude took credit for the technical issue and
> declared it to be righteous and true, all while complaining about a
> standard nearly as old as the RFC he cited. The irony on top of the irony
> is that the mangled blockquotes don?t even seem to be his doing; mailman
> seems to be the one making them terrible for everyone involved.
>
> I CC?d the conduct committee so that he wouldn?t respond to me directly.
> Obviously. Hence the ?gently encouraging?. Conduct committees are there for
> the purpose of dealing with people you don?t want to deal with yourself,
> even if nobody has really done anything wrong.
>
> This was the third or fourth response where he had been lecturing me
> personally over nothing at all. Also for some reason John?s responses kept
> ending up in my spam mailbox, so I had gotten six or so green-ink emails in
> a row with nothing apparently in between them, and I was kind of suspicious
> this guy wasn?t going to stop on his own.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:49:31 +0000
> From: Peter White <peter.white at posteo.net>
> To: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: XDG_CONFIG_DIRS an /usr/local/etc/xdg
> Message-ID: <20210920234931.GA123713 at Roadrunner>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:37:02PM -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > On 9/20/21 12:03, Peter White wrote:
> > > The way I see it there will be two universes: FHS and a subtly
> different
> > > XDG Base Dir Spec, which breaks with the former in peculiar subtle ways
> > > and any dev used to the former is in for some surprises, when not
> > > reading carefully. Now, I get that by saying "information" instead of
> > > "files" the authors did not want to limit themselves or the spec to
> > > files, which makes sense, given the elaborations about reading config
> > > files, let aside that it has been done since long before XDG anyways by
> > > shells for example. I think some people would do good by reading and
> > > understanding what was there already before "fixing" things that were
> > > not broken in the first place. This "information" vs. "files" stuff
> > > seems like one of these occasions.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > There is no need for a new spec to make this happen since this is
> > > documented in shell manuals which were there from the beginning of
> time,
> > > UNIX time that is.
> > >
> > > And, need I remind anyone: "Those who do not understand UNIX are
> > > condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer
> > > A lot of thought went into it, so one should not go fixing stuff that
> > > was never broken.
> >
> >
> > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
> >
> > Did you say something about the sacred Unix? Who is reinventing what now?
>
> Nice read, the point being? ;) I am not talking about "the split" and
> /usr/local *is* specified and does make a whole lot of sense in FHS. And
> that author does not understand what /opt is actually for, but that is
> very much off-topic, so I won't digress any further. FHS is always a
> good read, when in doubt. And there never was a need for *another* spec
> that breaks its override characteristic. At least I fail to see it, and
> nobody, so far, could provide a good reason for it. If there is need
> for, say, *additional* data dirs, then specify *those* and do *not* make
> XDG_DATA_DIRS default to /usr/local/share:/usr/share, since those are
> already covered by FHS, which differs subtly but very significantly in
> what happens if files with the same name exist in both, as I tried to
> point out. FHS: file /usr/local/share/foobar masks /usr/share/foobar,
> while, XDG mandates to also check /usr/share/foobar for information not
> present in the former.
>
> Same goes for XDG_CONFIG_DIRS: if it weren't for the default (/etc/xdg)
> all could be just fine. Yes, do encourage anything that is remotely
> related to desktop software to expect/put the *least* important config
> file(s) in ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg/<appname>, but leave XDG_CONFIG_DIRS empty
> with *no* default, the app should just hardcode the expected location at
> compile time. If the user/admin *then* has additional needs, they can go
> nuts with XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, for all I care. Again, there is no equivalent
> env var for the good old ${PREFIX}/etc, because that location is so well
> known and documented that, for all intents and purposes, it *can* be
> hardcoded, and that is what non-XDG apps have always done.
>
> So, staying in my ealier example, which I want to clarify in (some) more
> detail here:
>
> 1. Read ${PREFIX}/etc/xdg/<appname>/<rcfile(s)>, if it/they exist(s).
> 2. Read in reverse order, so as to go from least important to most
> important, files in XDG_CONFIG_HOME, if it is set, move on otherwise.
> DO NOT DEFAULT to anything.
> 3. Read XDG_CONFIG_HOME.
> (Since most important information is read and set last, the condition
> that it takes precedence is satisfied)
>
> This is pretty much what already happens with *any* software I can think
> of, but shells are very good examples, since they tend to document this
> very clearly. The *only* addition the spec needs, or needed rather, was
> XDG_CONFIG_DIRS but not the default.
>
>
> Best,
> PW
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of xdg Digest, Vol 206, Issue 11
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210921/bdb3a946/attachment-0001.htm>