|
Description
I would like all the configs for various applications to be stored in the same place, as it is now its scattered all over. For example
~/.somethingrc
~/.config/something
~/.aMule
~/.gconf/something
~/.gconfd/something
~/.gnome2/something
etc
Take rhythmbox for example, its settings are all over the place and if you want to backup or restore your rhythmbox config without restoring your entire homedir it takes a bit of work.
it would be much easier if each app had one dir containing all settings inside ~/.config for example
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Psycho_zs wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 15:11
|
Gconf with it's deep tree structure is not for simplicity and portability. It is a not-so-good resemblance of you-know-which os's registy.
keeping settings in .config is the best idea.
|
|
jouka wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 15:52
|
I agree, it's annoying. After few months from clean install, home directory gets flooded by different configuration files and directories. Even they're hidden they fell like an issue because some programs show them in default.
So a scrolldown-fest begins if one wants to save or open some files @ Music directory for example.
|
|
ubunteando wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 16:14
| |
I totally agree. Wouldnt take effort either!! It really sucks to see sometimes all those hidden folders and have to dive for your music folder among them!!
|
|
interval wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 16:37
|
Gconf is a step in the right direction, but I would agree, it can't be the final solution. A possible solution for this is the earlier-banteed "Ubunutu Approved" label. Perhaps if we come up with a tree that everyone (most?) can agree on, developers who use it can stamp their apps with this approval label. Seems to work for you-know-who to some extent...
|
|
wolfwitch wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 17:01
|
I think the problem is, even if you chose a single .config, there would still need to be a log of .x or x folders inside it for each app, which wouldn't change anything beyond what is seen in the home folder (if hidden file are shown or ls -al is used).
Otherwise- it would be necessary to coordinate config files with every single software developer out there to insure there was no overlap. What if three different developers used "vidconf.conf" for example.
I suppose a better solution would be to use a database system, but that is what that evil W* OS uses.
|
|
wolfwitch wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 17:01
|
@wolfwitch
...or maybe a LOT of .x or x folders...
|
|
wolfwitch wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 17:01
|
@wolfwitch
...or maybe a LOT of .x or x folders...
|
|
dbreakey wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 17:03
|
GConf is not the most well-implemented idea, but I think the basic concept is solid, and it already addresses the key shortcoming of that--ahem--*other* solution, namely lack of documentation.
It might not be a bad idea to *move* the GConf database into the .config folder (which should be easy enough, given its flexible backend options), but I'm not really set on the idea of getting rid of it. It's very useful for a lot of configuration issues.
Personally, I think .config should be used primarily for two purposes:
* For applications that are not GNOME (or KDE, or any other specific desktop env. for that matter) specific. IE: they don't *rely* on the mechanisms supplied by a specific desktop.
* For apps that are desktop specific, but still need to store config items that are not suitable for GConf (binary blobs--firmware files, etc), or whatever config storage mechanism is appropriate for the environment.
The notification and other features of GConf are too useful, from an administrative POV, and reimplementing it for the .config structure would just be redundant (improve GConf, instead).
|
|
stevemax wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 18:09
|
Terrible idea. The home directory exists exactly for this kind of user-specific configuration; and basically ALL software and tutorials available rely on the fact that ~/.bashrc is there, so is ~/.kde/, and so on. This would create a lot of problems to solve a "problem" that isn't there. You would make every single Ubuntu package incompatible with other distros' (and even the packages for other Unixes).
Let the developers use whatever they need. It's not like all those dot files always show up...
|
|
antikristian wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 18:18
|
an ~/.etc/ directory where you could have a kde folder, gnome folder .bashrc file and all needed configurationfiles would provide consistency with the rest of the filesystem. it wouldn't even need to be a hidden folder, it could be named ~/etc/ like some distros use a ~/bin/ folder.
The only problem I see here is that using this logic could confuse nex users that do not understand the tilde symbol, and therefore went looking for configurationoptions in the original /etc/ folder while following a guide or something.
|
|
josh.smith wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 18:44
|
if all the config files are in one place you can also symlink the directory onto another drive or something like that.
it also allows easy backup of config, just one folder to copy
|
Post your comment
|
