Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Flatpak claims adherence to desktop standards #191
Flatpak's FAQ claims the following:
This doesn't seem to be true.
One of the standards Flatpak violates is the XDG base directory spec: It incorrectly places files outside of the specified
I think the documentation could be improved by dropping the "freedesktop.org technologies such as ..." part, and explicitly listing both the standards adhered by Flatpak as well as those standards Flatpak chose to ignore.
I believe this could reduce user confusion as users might expect that an application formerly named
added a commit
Sep 30, 2017
Now I'm a bit baffled.
The spec clearly states where different files have to be placed. The Arch wiki even has a huge list of applications with associated bug reports to make them aware that dumping things into users' home folders is not the way to go anymore.
Flatpak clearly discards this and ignores the year-long efforts of reclaiming a user's home directory for the actual user, instead of it being a general dumping ground for application's private data.
Or am I misunderstanding something, and it's purely the word "violating" that should be adjusted a bit in your opinion? Would something like "does not conform to" be more to your liking?
@TingPing Which env var does Flatpak override? On my system neither
Whatever env var Flatpak uses to decide on the location of
They are overriden in the sandbox not on the host.
Applications are sandboxed and have no access to
This is incorrect (but a quite popular excuse): Autostart entries, Git, fonts, dconf settings, mesa, menu entries, Bazaar, and user directory settings are also not desktop applications, but they follow the spec.
Exactly because the spec lacks the means for proper enforcement, I would like to have it clearly documented, so that users like me can make a well-informed decision on whether to use Flatpak or not, without running into unwelcome surprises.
Isn't this a bit like running into a speed trap and trying to argue that that the ticket should be dismissed because you usually follow the speed limit "where it makes sense"?
To be clear:
I'm not trying to question your implementation choices, I just like to have the choices that have been made – as a matter of fact – to be clearly documented.
It's a matter of fact that Flatpak creates the
That's what the PR does.
A nice emergent property of the XDG spec is not only being able to back up all config files by simply archiving ~/.config, or being able to old cached files by "simply" deleting anything in ~/.cache older than n days, but also enabling software like backup apps being able to determine these locations programmatically, at runtime.
Flatpak's current behaviour breaks this, which kinda sucks. It's not as bad as being back in the bad old days of having to hunt-and-peck for these files on a per-app basis, but it does add back another location that now needs to be guessed by backup apps, etc.
A new discussion popped up on reddit discussing applications littering
I'm quite flabbergasted that a project so closely related to Gnome does not adhere to the best practice of freedesktop.org. I want a clean and smooth experience when using my computer. That's why I've chosen Gnome. I thought this was the general sentiment in the Gnome community.
If there's an important reason to do it like this, then ok. But I can't seem to find any good reasons here. When so many people want you to change, to what must be said to be more "Gnome like", then it's strange that you don't consider it, or even seem to want to give us a good reason why not.