On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 21:24 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > There is an argument there that programs should keep their
> > configs in their own directories, I personally find a centralized
> > "config" directory a MUCH better idea.
> 
> I don't use the OS "standard" directories for the various files of one of my
> software installations for two main reasons:

Actually, as you've quoted that text above it was more relevant for *nix
type OSs (and perhaps the new MacOS, which is based on BSD?)

> 1 - Keeping it in one place is more portable.  Portable in this case meaning
> easier for me to create versions for other operating systems.  The official
> places to put stuff are totally different accross different operating
> systems.  It would be a nightmare tracking all this and making sure each
> release for each OS did the right thing.
> 
> 2 - It avoids name collisions.  All my stuff goes into a directory called
> embedinc which is reasonably unlikely for anyone else to use.  All my
> program and other files now only need to be unique within embedinc, not
> within the system.

In windows I'd actually prefer if ALL programs put their stuff in the
registry, which is basically the same idea as the /etc directory for
Linux.

Of course, the registry has it's problems, and it's far from a perfect
solution, but it's about the only thing I'll tolerate programs fiddling
with, other then stuff in their own directory.

You are correct though, to be completely OS independent storing config
in a program's own directory is the most universal solution. But it sure
can make configuring a new system a pain in the rear.

TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist