Re: Wondering if ~/GNUstep shouldn't be ~/.GNUstep (i.e. hidden..)

[Riccardo Mottola]

Hi,

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> Yes, I'm not sure there's any reason to change the*default*  directory layouts 
> ... for many people putting everything in a single GNUstep subdirectory makes 
> perfect sense, and no one config will please everyone.
> However, encouraging distributions (and other interested people) to contribute 
> their own filesystem layout files for inclusion in gnustep-make seems good.
right.. however as someone suggested, for me, who installs with prefix=/ 
and not /usr/GNUstep with the "GNUstep layout", it makes sense to have 
in my home directly Library instead of GNUstep/Library

I will check this better on the mac as a comparison, but it makes sense.

What I think we should do is not create empty stuff! I checked in 
Library and I have several empty folders, e.g.:
GNUstep/Library/Addresses/
GNUstep/Library/Colors/

other have it recursive, like:
GNUstep/Library/GWorkspace/
seems not empty, but it contains only PBData, which is empty...


If we use "FHS" perhaps it would make sense to use .config at least for 
"some stuff", the problem is then the rest of the stuff: config mygt be 
fine for putting all the defaults, but what with local libraries, 
frameworks and even apps?


PS: As Robert wrote, GNUstep/Library/WindowMaker is created by the 
latter, so it is a good thing to work together (same options for both) 
with WM or we end up splitting stuff creating more mess.

Let me compare to what other make:
> ls .config/
gtk-2.0

and there are only "theme" preferences. I then still end up having
.mozilla
.gimp-2.8
.emacs (ok, this is "legacy" since it is used for text-only too)

and so on, thus my gtk2 apps are a mess too, it doesn't seem this layout 
is any cleaner than ours. The only advantage is that they are "hidden"

Riccardo