[fhs-discuss] Split home directory for each user into two parts

[Randy Kramer]

Steve (and all),

Because I (one of the people who) proposed this, I would like to 
respond.  I'm not quite ready at this time, or maybe, more accurately, 
I have some questions--see below.

On Tuesday 17 May 2011 02:52:11 am Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:15:58PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Maybe more like this:
> >
> > "See also the XDG Base Directory specification (ref), which sets a
> > number of conventions intended to organize users' home directories.
> >  The XDG Base Directory specification is recommended, but not
> > mandated."
>
> I think it's reasonable to provide a reference to the XDG spec, but I
> object to making this a recommendation of the FHS.  First, because I
> think this is scope creep; if we're not actually going to define this
> as part of the FHS itself (and I don't think we should because it's
> not particularly "heirarchical"), then I don't think we should be
> pointing elsewhere to recommend it either.  

In Chapter 1, of the FHS (Introduction), I don't see anything that 
limits the scope to "hierarchical".  I do  see the following (quoting 
from Chapter 1:

<quote>
Purpose

This standard enables:
   * Software to predict the location of installed files and 
directories, and
   * Users to predict the location of installed files and directories.
...

The FHS document has a limited scope:
   * Local placement of local files is a local issue, so FHS does not 
attempt to usurp system administrators.
   * FHS addresses issues where file placements need to be coordinated 
between multiple parties such as local sites, distributions, 
applications, documentation, etc.
</quote>

If someone would argue that /home relates to "local placement of local 
files", I'd have a variety of responses, the first being that /home is 
already addressed in the FHS.

> Second, because I think 
> the XDG spec has done an inadequate job of addressing the migration
> concerns for the myriad existing applications and installations that
> use "legacy" dotfiles and dot dirs, and it's not at all recommendable
> that applications migrate to XDG dirs without a careful and very
> long-term transition.

I agree that the XDG Base Specification has little if anything with 
respect to addressing migration concerns.  

Well, except that I can envision a migration path--I don't see anything 
that precludes a developer from starting to follow the XDG Base 
Specification such that, sometime down the road, when enough 
applications support it, it can be adopted.  I mean, the first step 
seems to be the developers specifying things using the symbolic 
names /locations (like $XDG_DATA_HOME) instead of specific locations 
(like /home/<username>).

I guess I would ask you, what does having this as a recommendation do to 
you (or Debian) that makes you want to object to it?  I'm guessing that 
it may force you (or Debian) to do something (else, why would you 
object)?  

Hmm, I should check an assumption--something, maybe in one your other 
posts, made me think that your objection has something to do with 
Debian--maybe I need to ask you that?  (So, consider this to be asking 
you. ;-)

I tried a little bit of googling to try to see what effect a 
recommendation in a standard has on Debian, but didn't quickly find 
anything.

I would like to see a migration in the direction as allowed in the XDG 
Base Specification--specifically, to have the option to move various 
classes of user specific data out of the /home directory.  The XDG 
doesn't force that, it simply allows it (by allowing one to point 
things like $XDG_DATA_HOME and such to locations outside of /home).

I don't know that the XDG Base Specification (nor the FHS) should try to 
specify a migration plan.  As I see it, I hope that developers of 
individual applications will start to support those options (like I 
mentioned above), and sooner or later, most applications will support 
them, or enough that I (and others with similar desires) can use them 
to migrate some of their data out of /home with less pain.

More questions:
   * Does Debian already support or accept the XDG Base Specification?
   * <darn--I'm getting old--maybe more later>

regards,
Randy Kramer

> So please drop this comment about the XDG spec being "recommended".