5 ms·
I would definitely prefer this. I've never wanted to see the "cache" stores for all (XDG-compliant) apps, but often want to see everything for a single app.
by nat 2y ago
I would definitely prefer this. I've never wanted to see the "cache" stores for all (XDG-compliant) apps, but often want to see everything for a single app.
- eadmund 2y agoIt’s less about wanting to see all the caches, and more about excluding all the caches, e.g. from backups. Likewise, there is one directory for machine-independent configuration which you might share, and another for machine-specific state (such as window positions). Is the spec perfect? No, of course not. But is it thoughtful, and does it address genuine needs? Yes, certainly.
- jasonjayr 2y agoIt also enables you do things like: a) store caches & libdata on different disk b) consistently 'reset' cached data for kiosk style logins c) make config read-only, or reset to a known good state d) Roaming profiles where the cache is excluded from sync across machines Most computers + home directories are 'personal' where this largly doesn't matter, but there are often sound operational reasons for this seperation in cases where you are responsible for a fleet of computers. I too perfer the 'everything related to this app in one dir' approach. Crazy idea: for apps adhering to XDG, you could point all these vars at a directory under a FUSE-style mount, which then remaps the storage any way you'd like. :)