On 01/28/2011 08:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Exactly; there should definitely/config (for /all/  user definable config
>> >  files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix
>> >  filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)
> And why would I want /config for all users? The config files in $HOME are user- specific and have no business being  system specific. It's /etc that has system specific config files. And maybe /config would have been a better name than /etc, but I don't think that a  name change would help anything at this point. Regardless, I_want_  my user-specific settings to be user-specific. I see_zero_ benefit in putting them in /config. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Indeed. I did not write "all users" but "all user definable config files". Maybe should have added a hyphen "all user-definable config files"? I did not mean that all users should have the same configs, lol! rather that user configs should be in a /config folder (inside their home); thus files (1) don't clutter their home folder (2) don't need be hidden.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

On 01/28/2011 08:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Not to mention, by having the config files in my home directory (or some subdirectory thereof), the config files can then be used on multiple Linux installs on the same box.

... and be saved together with your data.

>  If they were in something like /config, then you'd have
> to fix them all every time you setup another Linux install on the same box (be it
> a second/third/etc. install or one which replaces your current install -
> assuming that /home is on a separate partition). It's annoying enough to have to
> fix what's in /etc every time that I reinstall Linux.

What don't you save /etc as well, if you hack with it?

denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

On Friday 28 January 2011 12:19:56 spir wrote:
> On 01/28/2011 08:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> Exactly; there should definitely/config (for /all/  user definable config
> >> 
> >> >  files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix
> >> >  filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)
> > 
> > And why would I want /config for all users? The config files in $HOME are user- specific and have no business being  system specific. It's /etc that has system specific config files. And maybe /config would have been a better name than /etc, but I don't think that a  name change would help anything at this point. Regardless, I_want_  my user-specific settings to be user-specific. I see_zero_ benefit in putting them in /config. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
> 
> Indeed. I did not write "all users" but "all user definable config files". Maybe should have added a hyphen "all user-definable config files"? I did not mean that all users should have the same configs, lol! rather that user configs should be in a /config folder (inside their home); thus files (1) don't clutter their home folder (2) don't need be hidden.

/config would indicate that the config is in / rather than $HOME. Having a config directory inside of $HOME makes good sense. Putting a config directory in / does not.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Friday 28 January 2011 12:21:35 spir wrote:
> On 01/28/2011 08:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Not to mention, by having the config files in my home directory (or some subdirectory thereof), the config files can then be used on multiple Linux installs on the same box.
> 
> ... and be saved together with your data.
> 
> >  If they were in something like /config, then you'd have
> > 
> > to fix them all every time you setup another Linux install on the same box (be it a second/third/etc. install or one which replaces your current install - assuming that /home is on a separate partition). It's annoying enough to have to fix what's in /etc every time that I reinstall Linux.
> 
> What don't you save /etc as well, if you hack with it?

Of course, I save it. But it would be highly unwise to just copy it over to the new system. I have to spend the time to figure out which files should be copied over or edited and deal with all of that. With $HOME, I generally don't have to worry about it at all. Sometimes KDE does funny things when keeping the same config files between major versions or when trying to share them between Linux installs, but it mostly works. /etc is another beast entirely however.

- Jonathan M Davis

If you say "stuff should be in a /config file in someone's home" you are bound to confuse everyone. Prepending a slash means you are talking about an entry in the root. If you want to describe something in someone's home, say ~/config.

Andrei

On 1/28/11 2:19 PM, spir wrote:
> On 01/28/2011 08:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> Exactly; there should definitely/config (for /all/ user definable config
>>> > files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)
>> And why would I want /config for all users? The config files in $HOME
>> are user-
>> specific and have no business being system specific. It's /etc that
>> has system
>> specific config files. And maybe /config would have been a better name
>> than /etc,
>> but I don't think that a name change would help anything at this point.
>> Regardless, I_want_ my user-specific settings to be user-specific. I
>> see_zero_
>> benefit in putting them in /config. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>
> Indeed. I did not write "all users" but "all user definable config files". Maybe should have added a hyphen "all user-definable config files"? I did not mean that all users should have the same configs, lol! rather that user configs should be in a /config folder (inside their home); thus files (1) don't clutter their home folder (2) don't need be hidden.
>
> Denis

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> 
>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> 
>>> "I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"
>>>
>>> $ ls -a
>>> 
>>> 
>> Yes, I know about -a, and that I can alias ls to ls -a.
>>
>> 
>>> or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.
>>>
>>> Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files
>>> which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.
>>> 
>>> 
>> I just don't understand the mentality (Linux or Windows) for hidden files.
>> 
>
> Luckily, conforming to convention doesn't require understanding, just acceptance. :)
>
> 

Queue our discussion of CRLF vs LF !!

I already submitted a ticket for this with patch.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com> wrote:

> And while we're at it... that should be .dmdconf, not dmd.conf. It's time to polish all aspects of the installation.
> 
> Andrei
> 
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 27 January 2011 22:16:28 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I found the solution on the net. Apparently I need to add -L-lrt to the flags.
>>> 
>>> Probably this should be documented somewhere...
>> 
>> More like it needs to be fixed in the default dmd.conf. This will be broken for everyone on Linux if it's not in there.
>> 
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>> _______________________________________________
>> phobos mailing list
>> phobos at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

Having my home dir littered with configuration files I can't hide is also annoying. The *nix convention is to allow these to be hidden. It would be great if DMD followed this.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> And while we're at it... that should be .dmdconf, not dmd.conf. It's time to polish all aspects of the installation.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying.
> 
> BTW, the Windows convention is to store your configuration in the system registry. We do not do that. Nobody has yet complained about this (in the entire history of dmd and dmc). In fact, they /*like*/ that dmc/dmd do not put settings in the system registry.
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos