You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I think this is the best place for this question... if not, sorry.
Should config files now be placed in ~/.config/app_name/, e.g. ~/.config/powerpill/powerpill.conf? Should each app have a separate directory under .config/ or is it acceptable to dump a single, clearly named config file directly in .config/ ?
I read something about that in the last few days but I don't remember where (maybe it was a pacman upgrade message). Is there a consensus on best practice?
Last edited by Xyne (2008-10-15 20:15:32)
My Arch Linux Stuff • Forum Etiquette • Community Ethos - Arch is not for everyone
Offline
I can't remember when the ~/.config/ thing started, but historically, *nix apps have dumped the file directly to $HOME. Considering some very high-profile apps still do this (for instance, git), I tend to go with that way of doing things. It makes more sense and is less to type.
But, like I said, I have no idea where the ~/.config/ thing first came from. It is NOT part of the FHS or any similar standard. The first time I saw it was in OpenBox. So I'd start looking there if you want to find where this spec comes from (my guess might be here: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedi … test.html)
Offline
Thanks for the reply.
Dumping all configuration files in $HOME/.config makes sense to me, but I can also understand the argument of it just being extra characters to type in the path. I was mostly wondering if I should leave powerpill's conf file in $HOME, which I think I will while waiting to see if this catches on (or until people start requesting that it be moved... I supposed checking both paths would work too).
Last edited by Xyne (2008-10-15 23:07:12)
My Arch Linux Stuff • Forum Etiquette • Community Ethos - Arch is not for everyone
Offline
I myself prefer my config files to just be dotfiles in my home directory...the .config directory bugs me, because it takes longer to type XP
moljac024: No one really knows what happens inside /dev/null... it could be a gateway to another universe....
dunc: If it is, the people who live there must be getting pretty annoyed by now with all the junk we send them.
Offline
Instead I prefer .config/appname since the list of the appnames would be explicit and visible. I find completely stupid .config/.appname...
Offline
I find the $HOME/.apprc quite fuzzy, I prefer .config/app. I know it doesn't change a lot in organization, it's only one folder more, but it feels cleaner to me.
(lambda ())
Offline
I can't remember when the ~/.config/ thing started, but historically, *nix apps have dumped the file directly to $HOME. Considering some very high-profile apps still do this (for instance, git), I tend to go with that way of doing things. It makes more sense and is less to type.
But, like I said, I have no idea where the ~/.config/ thing first came from. It is NOT part of the FHS or any similar standard. The first time I saw it was in OpenBox. So I'd start looking there if you want to find where this spec comes from (my guess might be here: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedi … test.html)
There is a single base directory relative to which user-specific configuration files should be written. This directory is defined by the environment variable $XDG_CONFIG_HOME.
☃ Snowman ☃
Offline
Well, I have 403 hidden files and directories in my home dir.
I would be significantly happier with my computer if they were tucked somewhere I didn't have to navigate all the time.
Offline
Right or wrong, I think it is easier when programs that have multiple "configuration type" files (Openbox has 3, autostart.sh, menu.xml, and rc.xml) place them all together in one folder in the .config directory, e.g. ~/.config/openbox . Due to the fact that I also like things neat, clean, and consistent I like it when ALL programs do the same thing, and using ~/.config/<app> seems to keep things the neatest and cleanest.
Offline
Pages: 1