From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master f8fed41 2/3: image-dired: Improve XDG compliance Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83sfwp1c27.fsf@gnu.org> <87y26hqdxy.fsf@posteo.net> <83a6ix12k8.fsf@gnu.org> <87tuh5q9dz.fsf@posteo.net> <831r490xfh.fsf@gnu.org> <83bl3cyltv.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37381"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "Philip K." , Emacs developers To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 26 15:29:57 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mfMWb-0009TN-3w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:29:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44878 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfMWa-0002TK-1E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:29:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfMVO-0001Bc-Vl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:28:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-f173.google.com ([209.85.215.173]:40898) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfMVN-0005Yn-6n; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:28:42 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-f173.google.com with SMTP id l186so7691988pge.7; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xh9h79NTn4Ywh90UGSQJsk8b8tNKR6cnYh1YWpH+xn8=; b=Gszu4p6RvqDvIwzm5t9rgeg8KRGzBBKrrrbd4Q6BrJfeZeZyD+wYn1SSgN8zU1kq4u jJfbxG6lbsPX9Mb+wRvTr/1ja4iu7CvbLRqzLNGeHdWsH2LaxqO3hZ6zumxHq9H472Y8 u4A+V0vDapZ8oh3MmY3FIMEaHOWsaMaoCZ6OKzJijHB0DBZnEJgKHsNUdtUbSSkWkByw h/UrIBPv8nVWpmTEyrHpgiYntQLZDFtdfBp0CPCqM9Iy4pUu2fSgX/rJ+WCQYB6cO5CE mTD1HeO+r2o3l8W8a4vluBqeAcny83tiRFwhc/NvBc4yvzbkB9IPCMgFQPpIxWBjb//B fJdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Mg29PWTEoGQNz2rZa7cvRQ0+sIzHFpl7pjErCp0QgDDvRW+Ay +wwzhZByYX1cv3Ll7+pQ7jC+KZWtICHaUzEia1KjYlqleeQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrNo8kUg14mvSLStUaEIIIsqI1/4j+NDavbNgzFbtxidmLZm/RFx1GRktLzXcZoztwM2rXuFfkboJwdJktQjg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:244d:b0:44d:c279:5155 with SMTP id d13-20020a056a00244d00b0044dc2795155mr25613554pfj.0.1635254919288; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 06:28:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83bl3cyltv.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.173; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-f173.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:277854 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Yes, XDG is the current fashion. As were the ones before it. > > > > Which ones would that be? > > Is it important? It is not very important to me, but it seems crucial for the argument that the XDG Base Directory Specification is merely "the current fashion". AFAIK, there was no standard before the XDG BDS which it could replace, there exists no competing standard, and so far there has been no standard proposed to replace it. Is that wrong?