On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:59:48PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
Spencer Janssen wrote:
We ought to look at precedent from most other Unix tools -- they don't install stub configuration files and I think there are good reasons behind that. Consider a user that tries xmonad, but then decides in the end that it isn't for them. We shouldn't leave ~/.xmonad cruft (probably including a 3MB cached binary!) behind.
Unfortunately, precedent states that lots of ~/.* cruft _is_ left around by many applications;
I mean that we shouldn't create these files if we aren't using them.
As a user I prefer having the stub config file put there, in general, because it makes me feel more likely that I've actually got the right file that's going to be read by the program, and a basic idea of its syntax.
I must say I don't understand this. Do we expect that the user will immediately hunt for a file ~/.xmonad/xmonad.hs? Surely they'll seek the documentation first, in which case we can provide solid information on which file to edit and how it should look.
(But then if the app is upgraded, an old stub config file will be left there! Oh Nosies!)
Oh, this is an interesting point I hadn't considered. If the stub file isn't compatible with a later version of xmonad (highly likely), the user will receive error messages about a file they've never edited! Cheers, Spencer Janssen