David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> [2014-10-02 11:29:50 +0200]: > > > On 2014-10-02 11:17, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 13:50 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > >> > >>On 2014-09-28 11:23, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >>>The logic for choosing the runtime directory is complicated enough > >>>also without adding PULSE_RUNTIME_PATH into the mix. XDG_RUNTIME_DIR > >>>is sufficient for users to control the runtime directory. > >>>PULSE_RUNTIME_PATH has not been documented, so this change doesn't > >>>constitute an interface break. > >> > >>A quick googling of PULSE_RUNTIME_PATH seems to indicate usage of this > >>environment variable in at least chromium and enlightenment, and also > >>recommended in several blog posts and mailing lists, including this one. > >>It is likely used in several home-made scripts. > >> > >>I'm hesitant to remove it for that reason. > > > >The argument that "if you use undocumented interfaces, you can only > >blame yourself if your script breaks" probably won't change your mind, > >so I guess we'll just have to make this a documented interface then. > > Well, while not officially documented, we have still advocated the use of it > on this mailing list [1], which to some degree could be seen as the de-facto > documentation of PULSE_RUNTIME_PATH, given the lack of official > documentation saying otherwise. > 2c suggestion from the albatross-avoidance dept: How about adding it to the official doc, but as an explcitly deprecated feature (and with an explicit associated date/version beyond which it will not be supported)?
