Stories with Tag Dotfiles

• How I install personal versions of programs on Unix

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-12 07:01:56

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author details their method for installing and managing personal versions of software on Unix systems, emphasizing a clean, organized approach. They create a dedicated directory within their home folder (e.g., ~/software) to house all personally installed programs. Within this directory, each program gets its own subdirectory, containing the source code, build artifacts, and the compiled binaries. Critically, they manage dependencies by either statically linking them or bundling them within the program's directory. Finally, they modify their shell's PATH environment variable to prioritize these personal installations over system-wide versions, enabling easy access and preventing conflicts. This method allows for running multiple versions of the same software concurrently and simplifies upgrading or removing personally installed programs.

  Chris Siebenmann's blog post, "How I install personal versions of programs on Unix," details his meticulous approach to managing multiple versions of software on his Unix systems, prioritizing cleanliness and avoiding conflicts with system-wide installations. He outlines a structured process that ensures his personal programs remain isolated and easily manageable, while also allowing for system-wide upgrades without disrupting his personalized setup.

  The core of Siebenmann's method revolves around creating dedicated directories for each program. He uses a top-level directory, such as ~/local, to house all personally installed software. Beneath this, individual program installations reside in clearly named directories, often incorporating version numbers for easy differentiation. For example, ~/local/bin/python3.11 might hold a personal installation of Python 3.11. This structure allows him to keep multiple versions of the same program readily accessible.

  A key aspect of this organizational scheme is the manipulation of the PATH environment variable. Siebenmann modifies his PATH to prioritize the directories containing his personal program binaries. This ensures that when he executes a command, his preferred version, located within his personal installation directory, takes precedence over the system-wide version. He notes the importance of the order in which directories are added to the PATH, as this determines the precedence of different versions.

  The post further emphasizes the practice of compiling programs from source when possible. This grants him fine-grained control over the installation process and allows him to customize the software to his specific needs. When installing from source, he installs into his designated personal directories, maintaining the established organizational structure.

  Siebenmann explicitly avoids using tools like stow or checkinstall, preferring the directness and transparency of manual installation. This provides him with a clear understanding of where files are located and how his system is configured. He highlights the benefits of this approach for debugging and troubleshooting, as it simplifies the process of identifying and resolving issues.

  Furthermore, the blog post advocates for creating separate configuration files for personal program installations. This prevents interference with system-wide configurations and allows for personalized settings without impacting other users or system stability. This meticulous approach to configuration management enhances the overall organization and maintainability of his personalized software environment.

  In essence, Siebenmann's method champions a highly organized and self-contained approach to personal software management on Unix systems. Through careful directory structuring, PATH manipulation, and manual installation practices, he maintains a clean, efficient, and easily manageable personal software environment that coexists harmoniously with the system-wide installations.

  • unix
  • Linux
  • Software Installation
  • Personal Programs
  • system administration
  • Dotfiles
  • Environment Management
  • bash
  • shell
  • User Environment
  • Configuration Management
  • best practices
  • Tutorial

  Summary of Comments ( 11 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43662031

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely appreciate the author's approach of compiling and managing personal software installations in their home directory, praising it as clean, organized, and a good way to avoid dependency conflicts or polluting system directories. Several suggest using tools like stow or GNU Stow for simplified management of this setup, allowing easy enabling/disabling of different software versions. Some discuss alternatives like Nix, Guix, or containers, offering more robust isolation. Others caution against potential downsides like increased compile times and the need for careful dependency management, especially for libraries. A few commenters mention difficulties encountered with specific tools or libraries in this type of personalized setup.

  The Hacker News post "How I install personal versions of programs on Unix" (linking to a blog post detailing a user's preference for installing software in their home directory) sparked a lively discussion with 29 comments. Many commenters resonated with the author's desire for a clean, self-contained software environment, separate from the system-wide installations.

  Several users shared their preferred methods for achieving similar results. Some championed the use of tools like stow for managing multiple versions of programs installed in their home directory, highlighting its simplicity and effectiveness in creating symbolic links to the desired versions. Others advocated for environment modules, emphasizing their flexibility in switching between different software versions and configurations on the fly. A few mentioned containers (like Docker) and virtual machines as more heavyweight but ultimately more isolated solutions for managing software dependencies and versions.

  A significant thread of the conversation revolved around the pros and cons of the author's approach compared to more modern alternatives. Some commenters pointed out potential drawbacks, such as increased disk space usage due to redundant installations and the potential for conflicts if not managed carefully. Others countered that the benefits of isolation and control over software versions outweighed these concerns, particularly for development or testing environments.

  Some compelling comments included:

  • One commenter suggested the blog author explore Nix, a powerful package manager that provides reproducible builds and isolated environments. This suggestion sparked further discussion about the relative merits of Nix compared to other solutions.
  • Another commenter detailed their workflow using GNU Stow, providing concrete examples of how they leverage it to manage multiple versions of software.
  • A user highlighted the importance of keeping dotfiles under version control, regardless of the chosen installation method, for easy backup and restoration.
  • There was a brief discussion regarding the security implications of installing software from untrusted sources into one's home directory, reminding users to exercise caution and verify the integrity of downloaded software.

  Overall, the comments section reflects a shared understanding of the challenges and benefits of managing personal software installations on Unix-like systems. It provides a valuable overview of different approaches and tools available, ranging from simple shell scripts to sophisticated package managers, while highlighting the ongoing evolution of best practices in this area.

• The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 07:26:51

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post argues against using generic, top-level directories like .cache, .local, and .config for application caching and configuration in Unix-like systems. These directories quickly become cluttered, making it difficult to manage disk space, identify relevant files, and troubleshoot application issues. The author advocates for application developers to use XDG Base Directory Specification compliant paths within $HOME/.cache, $HOME/.local/share, and $HOME/.config, respectively, creating distinct subdirectories for each application. This structured approach improves organization, simplifies cleanup by application or user, and prevents naming conflicts. The lack of enforcement mechanisms for this specification and inconsistent adoption by applications are acknowledged as obstacles.

  Chris Siebenmann's blog post, "The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends," delves into the multifaceted issues surrounding the use of dot directories, specifically those intended for caching, in user home directories on Unix-like systems. While the XDG Base Directory Specification aimed to standardize the location of such directories (like .cache, .config, and .local), thereby improving organization and predictability, the practical implementation has revealed several shortcomings that impact system administrators and users alike.

  Siebenmann primarily focuses on the challenges these directories present for system backups and administration. The decentralized nature of these dot directories means that significant amounts of data, often transient and rapidly changing cache information, are scattered across numerous user home directories. This poses a problem for backup strategies. Including these directories in backups leads to inflated backup sizes, consuming valuable storage space and increasing backup times. Excluding them entirely, however, risks losing user-specific application configurations and potentially disrupting workflows upon restoration. This leaves administrators in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between bloated backups and potentially incomplete restorations.

  Furthermore, the blog post highlights the difficulty in managing disk space consumption related to these dot directories. Caching directories, by their very design, can grow rapidly and unpredictably. While disk quotas can be employed to limit overall user disk usage, they don't offer granular control over specific directory sizes within the home directory. This makes it challenging to prevent runaway cache directories from consuming excessive disk space and potentially impacting system stability. Users may be unaware of the burgeoning size of these hidden directories, further complicating the issue.

  Another point of concern raised is the lack of clear guidelines for managing the lifecycle of cached data. The XDG specification doesn't dictate how or when applications should purge outdated or unnecessary cache files. This leads to situations where stale or irrelevant data persists indefinitely, consuming disk space without providing any benefit. The absence of a standardized mechanism for cache eviction leaves users and administrators with the burden of manually cleaning up these directories, a process that can be tedious, error-prone, and often overlooked.

  Finally, the blog post touches upon the inconsistent implementation and adoption of the XDG specification across different applications. While many modern applications adhere to the standard, legacy applications and those developed without awareness of the specification may continue to create their own idiosyncratic dot directories, further exacerbating the organizational and management challenges. This inconsistency undermines the very purpose of the standardization effort, perpetuating the problems the specification was intended to solve. In conclusion, while the XDG Base Directory Specification represents a step towards better organization of user data, its practical implementation introduces complexities related to backups, disk space management, and cache lifecycle control, presenting ongoing challenges for Unix system administrators.

  • unix
  • Linux
  • Filesystem
  • .cache
  • XDG Base Directory Specification
  • Temporary Files
  • Caching
  • Disk Space
  • system administration
  • Dotfiles
  • Hidden Files
  • file management
  • best practices

  Summary of Comments ( 41 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945109

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree that standardized cache directories are a good idea in principle but messy in practice. Several point out inconsistencies in how applications actually use $XDG_CACHE_HOME, leading to wasted space and difficulty managing caches. Some suggest tools like bcache could help, while others advocate for more granular control, like per-application cache directories or explicit opt-in/opt-out mechanisms. The lack of clear guidelines on cache eviction policies and the potential for sensitive data leakage are also highlighted as concerns. A few commenters mention that directories starting with a dot (.) are annoying for interactive shell users.

  The Hacker News post "The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945109) has generated several comments discussing the merits and drawbacks of the XDG Base Directory Specification, particularly concerning the .cache directory.

  Several commenters agree with the author of the linked blog post that while the specification is well-intentioned, its implementation has created practical issues. One commenter points out the annoyance of having numerous hidden directories cluttering their home directory, making navigation and management more cumbersome. They argue for a simpler, less fragmented approach to storing application data.

  Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the proliferation of these directories complicates tasks like backups and disk space analysis. They wish for a more consolidated approach, perhaps allowing applications to store cache data within their own installation directories, provided appropriate permissions are managed. This approach is countered by another user who highlights the security implications, stating that allowing applications write access to their installation directories could create vulnerabilities if those directories are shared by multiple users or if the application itself is compromised.

  The discussion also touches upon the inconsistent adoption of the standard across different applications. Some commenters note that many applications still create their own application-specific directories within the home directory, rendering the XDG specification somewhat ineffective. They suggest that stronger enforcement or clearer guidelines are needed for developers to adhere to the standard.

  One commenter offers a practical workaround by using symbolic links to relocate the .cache directory to a dedicated partition or directory, allowing them to manage cache data separately. Another user suggests employing a tool like trash-cli to easily purge the contents of these directories when necessary.

  Some users express skepticism about the overall benefit of the standard, questioning whether the complexity introduced outweighs the advantages. They argue that the original intent – separating different types of application data – hasn't been fully realized, leading to a situation where users are burdened with managing a multitude of hidden directories without significant practical gain.

  A few commenters suggest alternative solutions, such as utilizing a dedicated /var/cache directory for all applications or leveraging more advanced filesystem features for managing temporary data. The idea of having package managers automatically clean up cache directories associated with uninstalled applications is also raised.

  In essence, the comments reflect a mixed reaction to the XDG Base Directory Specification and its implementation. While acknowledging the theoretical benefits of separating application data, many commenters express frustration with the practical implications of the standard, particularly the proliferation of hidden directories and inconsistent adoption across applications. Several workarounds and alternative approaches are suggested, highlighting a desire for a simpler, more streamlined approach to managing application data on Unix-like systems.