On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 04:08:36PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Is there any authoritative group at Fedora who wants the product to not > suck like that? Authoritative? Probably FESCo.

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 09:13:07AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 10:13 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 04:08:36PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Is there any authoritative group at Fedora who wants the product to not > > > suck like that? > > > > Authoritative? Probably FESCo. > > Well, this sounds like a packaging issue, doesn't it? Er, no? I see where you're coming from, and the distinction can be somewhat muddled at times. It is in a package, granted, but so is everything else, but "Software should honor TMPDIR and everything across the distro should have the same defaults" isn't really about packaging the software at all. > Wouldn't the expected outcome be a packaging guideline for how to deal > with temporary directory locations? So, the packaging committee... Maybe, but maybe not? Look at it this way: the last times we changed the rules here are effectively these two features: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ServicesPrivateTmp http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs Both of them specify that things should use /tmp - the first for a select batch of programs, the second for the whole distro. In neither case is there an FPC ruling on the matter, and in neither case is the actual packaging /necessarily/ affected. If there's no need to have a specific rule about where a packager should be installing files, what kind of config file should be used to manage something, or other things of that nature, this sort of thing usually doesn't go through FPC.

As for the background, it had started with Firefox hardcoding /var/tmp as its temporary directory. Obviously, starting applications from within Firefox made them run in an environment different than when started on the desktop.