On Feb 1, 2008, at 21:17, Michael G Schwern via RT wrote:
Show quoted text>> The bug is that it uses two locations, yes. My preference is for
>> ~/.cpan, but I can live with it elsewhere, as long as there is just
>> one directory.
>
> Ok good. Everything from here on rapidly gets academic but this is
> the clear bug.
Agreed.
Show quoted text>> There is no bootstrap problem if you always use `
>> $ENV{HOME}/.cpan`. ;-)
>
> Sure, if $ENV{HOME} is defined and if it's appropriate to use
> $ENV{HOME} on
> that system. On Windows, for example, it's wrong even if it is.
Whatever CPAN.pm has used for the last 10 years, then.
Show quoted text> Abstracting all this away was the point of File::HomeDir, so at that
> level it
> becomes a File::HomeDir issue.
Yes, that works, as long as CPAN.pm uses it consistently, of course.
Show quoted text>> Yes, and it is a tradition that Unix apps that are distributed *with*
>> Mac OS X use. If you fire up /usr/bin/emacs, what configuration file
>> does it use? ~/.emacs, of course. Only UI apps use ~/Library/
>> Application\ Support.
>
> I suspect the "choice" was more to just leave them alone to avoid
> adding
> another porting chore. It would involve digging into each and every
> app to
> change where it finds its config files.
I suspect that no one even thought about it or cared. They assume that
if someone knows enough to be using a Unix command-line program with a
configuration file, they'll expect it to be in ~/.
Show quoted text> Perl, having a much richer set of libraries, is much better about
> abstracting
> this sort of thing away.
I agree it should be abstracted away, I just don't agree that it
should go somewhere other than ~/.
Show quoted text> Is there any particular reason command line and GUI apps should put
> their
> configs in different places?
Don't think so. Convention.
Show quoted text> Since Apple made the OS and Carbon and Cocoa, it's academic to argue
> that fine
> point of what's the OS and what's the API.
You're right, that was a cheap shot. Sorry.
Show quoted text> The point was that OS X has a
> unified API to ask while, in general, Unix does not. If Ubutunu had
> one (and
> it might) it might make sense to ask it.
>
> Carbon and Cocoa will probably say the same thing. It would be
> silly if they
> didn't as the whole point of Carbon is to make OS 9 apps transition
> to OS X.
Agreed.
David