[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNUstep.sh / env sanity patches

From: Armando Di Cianno
Subject: Re: GNUstep.sh / env sanity patches
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:46:28 -0400

On 2004-08-19 05:58:27 -0400 John Davidorff Pell <address@hidden> wrote:

I find it rather stupid to be putting the defaults database outside of ~/Library (or ~/GNUstep/Library). I do NOT think that this functionality
should be supported because it leads to unneccessary kludge in the
system and leads pretend power users thinking that GNUstep should
be as flexible in everything, and by extention should honor the system paths, and ditch the whole concept a bundles and resources grouped together etc.

I think it goes w/o saying, but once GNUstep.sh is removed, and no part of the make / make install / Documents make / Documents make install process writes defaults / creates directories, I can agree with this, somewhat. I don't see _why_ it shouldn't be configurable, though. For example, you _know_ that some silly program is possibly storing your password in clear text, so you want to relocate your Defaults to an encrypted file / file system. Wait. I'm doing that right now. ;-) (I don't encrypt my entire home directory, 'cause that would be a lot of overhead considering music date, movies, etc etc.).

... and of course all my nightmares with the above issue in relation to Gentoo package management. If proposed alterations "just fix this" I'm going to be really happy, but I have this nagging suspicion that a lot of things try to create directories/files for Defaults ... which is "fine", but it's an unwanted side effect when running daemons, make install'ng, building docs, etc etc. Side effects are always bad, imho.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]