Re: Default for image-dired-main-image-directory

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> >From a Emacs package perspective, just following XDG is still not clear
>> enough.  Should all Emacs packages store data inside "XDG_DIR/emacs"
>> subdirectory or maybe "XDG_DIR/emacs/package-name"? What should be the
>> file names? The details I quoted are providing a possible clarification
>> about these kinds of questions, except that no-littering assumes
>> XDG_DIR=.emacs.d.
>
> Look at xdg.el and at startup.el where we already use XDG-compliant
> directories.  What you say above is neither compliant with XDG nor
> with any current Emacs convention; it's an entirely new arrangement.
> I think that's one too many.

What I propose is not an alternative to XDG. It is complient with XDG in
a sense defined in "Referencing this specification" section of the XDG
standard. We just put things under appropriate XDG_DIR instead of
.emacs.d.

It is indeed a new arrangement for Emacs. I feel that having a
convention about sub-directories and file names would be useful. The
very existence of no-littering package indicates that some other people
also prefer having a convention. If you think that it is not necessary,
it is fine. Other people can jump in and support/oppose my suggestion.

Best,
Ihor