[lsb-discuss] Thinking about future LSB features

Chris Lee cslee-list at cybericom.co.uk
Fri Feb 13 04:06:54 PST 2009

I second this strongly.
I do not care about performance issues, just having a tone of files that 
the user has to look at each time they visit their home directory.
And some nice rules about how to use that space so that config files 
owners are easy to track down and also play nice with others...
Put a comment at the beginning of config files with the application name 
in it, full path if possible.
Put a unique numner on the end of config files, that way multiple 
versions of an app can coexist easily and two apps with similar names 
can have config files that do not crash.


Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message 
> <FE028D69955796489B510CE43DBBE80319279CA7 at rrsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com>, 
> "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> writes
>> As we think about the activities for the LSB meeting around
>> the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, I'd like to suggest
>> that we get as many possible new LSB features onto a list
>> ahead of time as we can.  To me, it's always easier to do
>> discussions in a large-ish forum if there are some ideas
>> already on paper, rather than just blindly opening the
>> floor and hoping that drives a productive discussion.
>> So just to start that particular ball rolling, let's ask
>> again what are the pain points that LSB 4.0 doesn't address?
>> We do have some saved issues that didn't get addressed,
>> and some subset of those will likely be on the list for
>> the next version of LSB, but rather than trot those out
>> here I'd like to do a one-time query "fresh".
>> What would make LSB more useful to you?
> Throwing in a more "end user" point of view, and probably in the totally 
> wrong forum (I suspect it belongs in the FHS), but "get rid of all those 
> config files in ~".
> Various reasons. I know disks and filesystems are a lot faster now, but 
> cluttering up ~ impacts EVERY program that that accesses user files.
> And as a technical user, in Windows I normally tell it to display ALL 
> files, WITH extensions (ie over-ride the "hide stuff" defaults). Much as 
> I don't like the way Windows does most things, "Documents & Settings" is 
> implemented much better than /home in that respect. (Yes I know, 
> historical precedent ... ...)
> I think all user config files should be in a mirror of /etc, called 
> either ~/etc or (probably better) ~/.etc. The actual location should be 
> a soft option defined in the /etc config file :-)
> It might be a good idea to define other default directories under ~ too, 
> a bit like "Application Data" et cetera et cetera.
> Cheers,
> Wol

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list