"Update standard folders" should add language links to folders, not rename them

[André Pirard]

Binary package hint: xdg-user-dirs

Update: I made a more concise version of this text upstream at:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32342

This applies to all Ubuntu (Gnome) versions up to 10.04.
Note: understand "Bureau" below as the name of any "standard" folder in any language. For example, also "Картинки" = Pictures folder name in Russian.

Summary:
This report explain some of the many pitfalls caused by the renaming of Desktop to Bureau.
These pitfalls can cause programs, scripts and the system itself to misbehave.
A drastic solution is to make a Bureau -> Desktop symbolic link instead.
Furthermore, this seems very simple to implement, it almost already works.

When a user changes the language of its profile she/he is asked a "funny" question in Desktop-1.png.
"Update standard folders to new language?"
He/she does not understand and he replies "yes". From then on, obscure magic happens.
Among other folders, ~/Desktop is renamed ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty.
Let's assume it's not. Then a new ~/Bureau is created beside.
If the user drags "New file" (Desktop-2.png) a little bit, it disappears (Desktop-3.png).
It will reappear after the next Login, at which time all the other Desktop objects disappear.
Then she/he makes a screenshot and is told that a file she/he doesn't see does exist (Desktop-3.png).
Nothing is lost, the user has 2 desktops, Desktop and Bureau, only now showing, hard to guess.
The same applies for Documents, Music, etc... total confusion.
If some program unaware of this game looks for Desktop, it won't find it.
Etc... etc... Confusion looks like the comments of (different) Bug #209513.

Every time one refers to ~/Desktop, it's a mistake, and that's not only in programs...
Every time someone writes "cd ~/Desktop" in sample code on the Web, and even worse in a script, they're doing a BIG MISTAKE. They should explain that, if and only if their system implements standard folders renaming, French people must type cd ~/Bureau, Russian ones cd "~/работая стол" etc, even more complicated for the script. HOW SIMPLE !!!

This is obviously not the way it should work.
This is NOT Windows. We can use symbolic links.
Instead of renaming ~/Desktop, let's make a ~/Bureau -> Desktop symbolic link.
EVERYTHING will continue to be able to refer to Desktop unchanged.
And the user interface (Desktop, Nautilus...) will happily refer to ~/Bureau all the same.
It will contain the same data, because the same folder.
The only setting needed is the name to use : Bureau, meaning ~/Bureau, redirected at will.
It's best to create the aliasing without asking the user any question.
There can be a setting for those really wanting to see the folders' names in any language they choose.
If the user changes language again, it's best to leave ~/Bureau intact in case it's referred to somewhere.

The BEST OF ALL is that it already works. Almost...
Before xdg-user-dirs comes into play, make sure Desktop is not empty and create ~/Bureau -> Desktop.
xdg-user-dirs will not change that and the aliasing will work free of all those inconveniences.

User experience.
The above kludge has been used for a 6-language 10-users couple of Ubuntu 8.04 systems.
Beside ~/ being crowded with aliases in 6 languages, the only inconvenience has been Picasa.
They found 6 times the pictures they eagerly looked for.
They will have to learn that scanning a filesystem must not follow aliases.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

Here are the screenshot attachments.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. However, you suggest that "Update standard folders" should add language links to folders, not rename them while the real issue is that (in your case) ~/Desktop is renamed to ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty. Do you want to keep this bug as a feature/config change request or a bug about that folder renaming issue?

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-22 16:37, papukaija wrote :
> However, you suggest that "Update standard folders"
> should add language links to folders, not rename them while the real
> issue is that (in your case) ~/Desktop is renamed to ~/Bureau, but only
> if it is empty. Do you want to keep this bug as a feature/config change
> request or a bug about that folder renaming issue?
>
Thanks for reviewing this.
The very fact that ~/Desktop disappears because it is renamed ~/Bureau
is so full of hazardous and possibly severe consequences that YES YES
YES it must be considered a bug.
I just mentioned a few cases; they would fill a book.
Of course, only those whom some people call foreigners (who renamed
their Desktop) actually *see* the consequences of the problem (assuming
they do not just shiver).
But that doesn't mean the other ones do not *meet* the problem, and here
is a good example.
Every time someone writes "cd ~/Desktop" in sample code on the Web, and
even worse in a script, they're doing a BIG MISTAKE. They should
explain that French people must type cd ~/Bureau, Russian ones cd
"~/работая стол" etc, even more complicated for the script.

Making a symbolic link instead of renaming is so obviously the solution
(allowing to use either ~/Desktop or ~/Bureau) that I wonder why the
only answer to my bug report is not "Gosh, you're right". Again, I do
not see at all what is "Incomplete", the report is self-explanatory.

And, once again, it is not *my* case, it is *the world's case*.
I'm not reporting the bugs for myself but for the sake of Ubuntu.
In fact, despite I speak French and as unforeseen as it may be, I run my
session in English.
But I've got Russian, Spanish and Romanian in other sessions, and that's
great !!!

[papukaija (papukaija)]

I'll update this bug's title and description since you see the renaming failure as a bug and symbolic link as a solution.

About your example: That's why programmers use system variables like $HOME or XDG_MUSIC_DIR to avoid issues when a user changes the system lang. In fact, xdg-user-dirs-update (part of xdg-user-dirs) changes the file paths in .config/user-dirs.dirs.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

Thanks for taking care.
Yes I know that the directory names can be retrieved but also that it
neither easy nor done.
Symbolic links REALLY ARE the SAFE solution.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-22 21:09, papukaija wrote :
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - "Update standard folders" should add language links to folders, not rename them
> + XDG_DESKTOP_DIR (ex. ~/Desktop) isn't renamed to the new language if it isn't empty
>
> ** Description changed:
>
> Binary package hint: xdg-user-dirs
>
> + BUG (shortly): XDG_DESKTOP_DIR (ex. ~/Desktop) isn't renamed to the new
> + language if it isn't empty
No.
Your Summary, Description etc.. are incorrect.
What I have written described the problem and solution very precisely.
Please return this bug text to the initial state.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

As you wish but then the renaming failure will _not be_ fixed because this bug becomes a feature request/wishlist.

By consequence, the issue you are reporting is an upstream one and it would be nice if somebody having it could send the bug to the developers of the software by following the instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME. If you have done so, please tell us the number of the upstream bug (or the link), so we can add a bugwatch that will inform us about its status. Thanks in advance.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-22 22:55, papukaija wrote :
> As you wish but then the renaming failure will _not be_ fixed because
> this bug becomes a feature request/wishlist.
Let us recall that you asked if I consider this a bug.
I replied YES (I want it to be a bug).
That is because the system behaves abnormally.
That the definition of a bug.
And because the consequences can be important.
So please make it a bug.

But don't change the title etc to a totally different meaning.

I realized that one has to read the report up to the end to understand.
In consequence, I have added a Summary at the beginning.

NB: The fix must be very easy.
So, I suggest Ubuntu themselves take care of that.

Thanks.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

There are two issues in this bug report. The first one: folder renaming issue. The second: You want xdg-user-dirs to have a completely different way of handling system language changes (directory renaming -> creation of symbolic links).

I asked in comment 2 if you want this bug report to be about the folder renaming issue. You answered yes (comment 4) and I adapted this bug title and description. Then you changed your mind in comment 6 and 8. By the way, I changed this bug title back to its original that you used at the time of reporting this bug.

It is time choose what issue you want have in this bug report. If you choose the first one, it's obvious that this bug's title and description need updating to make it a bug instead of wishlist/feature request.

This packages description says: "This program reads a configuration file, and a set of
default directories. It then creates localized versions of these directories in the users home directory and sets up a config file in $(XDG_CONFIG_HOME)/user-dirs.dirs (XDG_CONFIG_HOME defaults to ~/.config) that applications can read to find these directories."

-> Your proposed fix (symbolic links which I consider as a workaround) is the complete opposite to what this package does and therefore has to be reported to upstream. Please bear in mind that the upstream might not accept your proposition.

If your proposed fix is so easy to make then you might provide us a patch. That patch needs of course be forwarded to upstream because this package is imported from Debian * unless you (or someone else) are ready to provide a patch for every new upstream release.

* As you can see at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-user-dirs/0.12-1ubuntu1

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

It seems we're off again to very long discussions to prove the obvious.

On 2010-08-23 12:40, papukaija wrote :
> There are two issues in this bug report. The first one: folder renaming
> issue.
Let us try to be clear. What are you calling a "folder renaming *issue*"?
There is a "folder having been renamed" problem but NO "further
renaming" solution.
If a folder contains data, it would be crazy to rename it.
Simply because the data in it would no longer be found (references no
longer valid).
In consequence of that bug the system MUST keep TWO desktops: Desktop
and Bureau.
The consequences for the user is to have desktop data hidden and maybe
unmovable.
This is proving enough that the folder renaming method is the buggiest
thing on earth.
I never said anything else than that linking should be used instead of
renaming.
> The second: You want xdg-user-dirs to have a completely different
> way of handling system language changes (directory renaming -> creation
> of symbolic links).
A symbolic link is avoiding that bug by having a single directory with
two names.
It is a very simple and bright idea.
> I asked in comment 2 if you want this bug report to be about the folder
> renaming issue. You answered yes (comment 4) and I adapted this bug
> title and description. Then you changed your mind in comment 6 and 8. By
> the way, I changed this bug title back to its original that you used at
> the time of reporting this bug.
I'm sorry I did not understand you were suggesting an impossible solution.
I thought that you were speaking of what I am saying.
I did not change my mind, I know exactly what I suggest.
> It is time choose what issue you want have in this bug report. If you
> choose the first one, it's obvious that this bug's title and description
> need updating to make it a bug instead of wishlist/feature request.
There is nothing to choose.
I never spoke of more than one thing.
I do not accept changing what I say to something impossible.
> This packages description says: "This program reads a configuration
> file, and a set of
> default directories. It then creates localized versions of these
> directories in the users home directory and sets up a config file in
> $(XDG_CONFIG_HOME)/user-dirs.dirs (XDG_CONFIG_HOME defaults to
> ~/.config) that applications can read to find these directories."
>
> -> Your proposed fix (symbolic links which I consider as a workaround)
> is the complete opposite to what this package does and therefore has to
> be reported to upstream. Please bear in mind that the upstream might not
> accept your proposition.
My proposed fix is not a workaround but a clever fix for a very stupid bug.
My fix does not do the opposite of what that package does.
It does EXACTLY the same thing (same results) but in a manner without a bug.
If you think of it twice, making symbolic links does indeed "create
localized versions of these directories".
Renaming directories is the worst thing to do.
If you're not sure of that, try renaming your /etc directory.
> If your proposed fix is so easy to make then you might provide us a
> patch. That patch needs of course be forwarded to upstream because this
> package is imported from Debian * unle...

[papukaija (papukaija)]

"Let us try to be clear. What are you calling a "folder renaming *issue*"?"
-> You wrote about it in this bug's description "Among other folders, ~/Desktop is renamed ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty."

"If a folder contains data, it would be crazy to rename it."
->That's what xdg-user-dirs is supposed to do when the a user changes system's language.

"In consequence of that bug the system MUST keep TWO desktops: Desktop and Bureau. The consequences for the user is to have desktop data hidden and maybe unmovable. This is proving enough that the folder renaming method is the buggiest thing on earth."
->How would you fix bug 1?

"A symbolic link is avoiding that bug by having a single directory with two names."
->Avoiding isn't the same as fixing a bug. (see the changelog for the recent system update for upstart).

"It does EXACTLY the same thing (same results) but in a manner without a bug but in a manner without a bug."
->How can you be so sure that someone will write and package your solution without any bugs?

'If you think of it twice, making symbolic links does indeed "create localized versions of these directories".'
->For the user it looks so, but technically a symbolic link isn't the same as a folder/directory.

"Renaming directories is the worst thing to do."
->And challenging Microsoft is the worst thing to do for fixing bug 1 instead of abandoning the whole Ubuntu project.

" If you're not sure of that, try renaming your /etc directory"
-> /etc is just a default folder name. Just edit some config file and there you go. Or an other way: Make a new partition to your hdd/ssd or use an existing one from an internal/externel drive, move the etc folder (and rename it at the same to eg. mysystem) to that partition and edit needed config files. Now you could have moved and renamed your etc folder.

"I have no acquaintance with Debian and I do not want to report to Debian. The main reason is that, as you say it yourself, I do not want Debian to prevent Ubuntu improvements."
Bear in mind that this package is just synced from Debian. Debian gets the package from upstream.

"I want to keep Ubuntu deciding if they want to apply simple fixes with high benefits."
That would be much easier to do if there would be something to apply (to patch).

"It's up to Ubuntu to decide if they want to also send the report to Debian and wait 3 years for the fix to come."
-> No, the decision is already made and has to be followed at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20bug%20that%20should%20be%20handled%20upstream

Thanks in advance.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

"The equivalent of this very simple fix has been tested for 3 years."
Could you please be more specific? Who has tested and where?

Thanks in advance.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. The issue you are reporting is an upstream one and it would be nice if somebody having it could send the bug to the developers of the software by following the instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME. If you have done so, please tell us the number of the upstream bug (or the link), so we can add a bugwatch that will inform us about its status. Thanks in advance.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-25 15:51, papukaija wrote :
> -> No, the decision is already made and has to be followed at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20bug%20that%20should%20be%20handled%20upstream
>
Can you explain why there are 2 Debian bugs for

I'll be trying to file a bug with Debian, but I've already spent a good
time *trying* to.
I landed on www.debian.org/Bugs/ [Reporting] requesting me to send an
e-mail form (*).
In find e-mail forms extremely adequate.
But only after preparing them with a Web form emailing it to the user
first is badly needed.

In general:
In order for what's said in that URL to be achievable, could you please
explain/point to the URLs explaining;
- assuming that the culprit package has been determined, not a given thing,
- how do we know where its "upstream" is, and especially their bug
reporting page?
- how do we know that we will not lose our time and sound stupid being
send away with "that's Ubuntu's doing"?

In particular : how can I report this bug to Debian simply and not lose
my time?
Is there a NORMAL bug reporting page?

(*) here is how their recommended method goes (it starts by asking me to
retport the bug to Ubuntu)...
$ sudo aptitude install reportbug; reportbug
...
*** ERROR: "Ubuntu" BTS is currently unsupported. Please use
"ubuntu-bug" (from
the apport package) for reporting bugs in Ubuntu. You can report bugs to
Debian
by using bts=debian (see reportbug(1)).
guessed "man",
       -B SYSTEM, --bts=SYSTEM
              Instead of the Debian bug server (or the bug server
specified in /etc/reportbug.conf, which is
              ubuntu by default on Ubuntu systems), use the server
specified by SYSTEM. You can specify help
              to get a list of supported servers.
determined --
$ reportbug --bts=debian
Welcome to reportbug! Since it looks like this is the first time you
have used reportbug, we are configuring
its behavior. These settings will be saved to the file
"/home/p/.reportbugrc", which you will be free to edit
further.
Please choose the default operating mode for reportbug.

1 novice Offer simple prompts, bypassing technical questions.

2 standard Offer more extensive prompts, including asking about things
that a moderately sophisticated user
            would be expected to know about Debian.

3 advanced Like standard, but assumes you know a bit more about Debian,
including "incoming".

4 expert Bypass most handholding measures and preliminary triage
routines. This mode should not be used by
            people unfamiliar with Debian's policies and operating
procedures.

Select mode: [novice] 2
Please choose the default interface for reportbug.

1 text A text-oriented console interface

2 urwid A menu-based console interface

Select interface: 2
Will reportbug often have direct Internet access? (You should answer yes
to this question unless you know what
you are doing and plan to check whether duplicate reports have been
filed via some other channel.) [Y|n|q|?]? y
What real name should be used for sending bug reports? [Papou]
>
Which of your email addresses should be used when sending bug reports?
(Note that this address will be visible
in the bug tracking system, so you may wa...

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-25 15:53, papukaija wrote :
> "The equivalent of this very simple fix has been tested for 3 years."
> Could you please be more specific? Who has tested and where?
Am I asking who is your girlfriend (подруга?) and where she lives? ;-)
8 persons for which I installed 8.04 in English and who run it in
another language.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

It seems I succeeded filing what seems to be Debian-Bug#594427 for this one.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-25 15:51, papukaija wrote :
> "Let us try to be clear. What are you calling a "folder renaming
> *issue*"?"
> -> You wrote about it in this bug's description "Among other folders,
> ~/Desktop is renamed ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty."
I was asking what are you calling an *issue*, what is your definition of
this fuzzy word.
That renaming problem is not an issue=bug, it is the issue=consequence
of a bug.
A bug amounts to code you can change to have something done correctly.
> "If a folder contains data, it would be crazy to rename it."
> ->That's what xdg-user-dirs is supposed to do when the a user changes
> system's language.
Hence, by way of hypothetical syllogism, xdg-user-dirs would be supposed
to do crazy things when the a user changes system's language. Hence, ab
absurdo, if Ubuntu is not supposed to be crazy, xdg-user-dirs is not
supposed to do that. In fact, it is supposed to have the desktop appear
as Bureau by whatever method is appropriate and it uses rename which is
the wrong one instead of symbolic link which is the good one. That
wrong choice is the bug.
> "In consequence of that bug the system MUST keep TWO desktops: Desktop
> and Bureau. The consequences for the user is to have desktop data
> hidden and maybe unmovable. This is proving enough that the folder
> renaming method is the buggiest thing on earth."
> ->How would you fix bug 1?
Again, there is no bug 1. That's something you invented.
There is a problem 1 that disappears when what you call bug 2 is fixed.
> "A symbolic link is avoiding that bug by having a single directory
> with two names."
> ->Avoiding isn't the same as fixing a bug. (see the changelog for the
> recent system update for upstart).
I'm sorry. I should have written "avoiding a *problem*". Fixing a bug
is avoiding a problem.
You make me write a lot.
> "It does EXACTLY the same thing (same results) but in a manner without
> a bug."
> ->How can you be so sure that someone will write and package your
> solution without any bugs?
I did not say that he will not add a bug I said that he will remove one.
However, you may be the only one to believe that someone will make a
mistake when he 1) replaces a rename with a link and 2) removes a rename.
But systems that have been damaged by that bug must be repaired.
> 'If you think of it twice, making symbolic links does indeed "create
> localized versions of these directories".'
> ->For the user it looks so, but technically a symbolic link isn't the
> same as a folder/directory.
Yes. Not only for the user, for every program in the system. The
opengroup.org definition is "A type of file with the property that when
the file is encountered during pathname resolution, a string stored by
the file is used to modify the pathname resolution". That means that any
program accessing Bureau will in fact access Desktop transparently. And
that is exactly the goal. The only programs that will notice the
difference are those specifically asking "is it a symbolic link?"
because they scan the filesystem and they do not want to find the same
data twice or they want to copy symbolic links as such.
> "Renaming directories is the worst thing to do."
> ->And challenging ...

[papukaija (papukaija)]

"Can you explain why there are 2 Debian bugs for"
-> For what?

"I'll be trying to file a bug with Debian"
As stated in comment 13, the upstream for this bug is GNOME, not Debian. The bug tracker for GNOME can be found at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ Instructions for its usage are available at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME

"In order for what's said in that URL to be achievable, could you please
explain/point to the URLs explaining;"
-> Sure.

"- assuming that the culprit package has been determined, not a given thing,"
A bug triager will check that a bug is reported against the rifgt package. More information at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage

"- how do we know where its "upstream" is, and especially their bug reporting page?"
This is explained at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/

"- how do we know that we will not lose our time and sound stupid being send away with "that's Ubuntu's doing"? "
->This is explained at http://distributions.freedesktop.org/wiki/Packaging/WhyUpstream

"how can I report this bug to Debian simply and not lose my time? Is there a NORMAL bug reporting page?"
The correct page to report this bus is at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/

"Again, there is no bug 1. "
-> If you would use Launchpad's web interface, you would have seen that 'bug 1' is a link to https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1

"However, you may be the only one to believe that someone will make a mistake when he 1) replaces a rename with a link and 2) removes a rename."
-> Is this only men's world?

"Which "some config files"?"
-> Maybe /etc/fstab, /etc/cryptab and files that are used when a kernel is build but I hope that you understand that I am not going to explain how to build a custom kernel.

"I just didn't know that you were the deciding person, sorry."
-> I haven't written Ubuntu's wiki pages.

"It seems I succeeded filing what seems to be Debian-Bug#594427 for this one."
-> I am sorry but that is not what was asked in comment 13. The correct bug tracker for GNOME bugs is at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ and instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME

Please follow those instructions to report this bug to the correct upstream. Thanks in advance!

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

> If your proposed fix is so easy to make then you might provide us a
> patch. That patch needs of course be forwarded to upstream because
> this package is imported from Debian * unless you (or someone else)
> are ready to provide a patch for every new upstream release.
> * As you can see at
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-user-dirs/0.12-1ubuntu1
> <https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-user-dirs/0.12-1ubuntu1>
This text didn't exactly made clear who is "us" and who is "upstream"
but all bets were to me that "upstream" is Debian. So, as I was
requested to file the bug upstream, I filed it to Debian.

Part of there answer is :
> You should bring this issue upstream. There is no reason for Debian to
> diverge from upstream on such a large scale.
And please note that he doesn't say where upstream is.

So, my conclusion is that:
- everybody should do the job he's competent for and Ubuntu knows where
their upstreams are
- I'm fully competent with this problem, so I reported it
- but the different reactions tell me that obviously no one wants to
have that bug corrected
- nor the other ones, 1, 2 or 3 years old.

And so, my best option is not to lose my time reporting bugs any longer.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

I'm sorry if the upstream was missing from comment 10 but in comment 11 I already was more clear ("Bear in mind that this package is just synced from Debian. Debian gets the package from upstream."). Anyway, as stated in comment 13 that the upstream for this package is GNOME which bug tracker is available at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ and instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

On 2010-08-27 16:26, papukaija wrote :
> I'm sorry if the upstream was missing from comment 10 but in comment 11
> I already was more clear ("Bear in mind that this package is just synced
> from Debian. Debian gets the package from upstream."). Anyway, as stated
> in comment 13 that the upstream for this package is GNOME which bug
> tracker is available at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ and instructions at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME
That's all right. Indeed I din't scrutinize every place after having
looked at Debian. But, in general, words like "we", "you" and "upstream"
should be avoided ane replaced with Canonical/Ubuntu/the triagers/...,
some user/a commenter/the reporter/André/aka Papou (или Папу)/...,
Debian/Gnome/some person...
I may try to contact Gnome, but not just now. I'd like to limit my
time. Thanks.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Is there any news about this bug? Has someone affected by this bug sent the report upstream? Could you tell us the bug number, so we can add a bugwatch that will inform us about its status? Thanks in advance.

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

I wrote I'll do my best to file this to Gnome asap.

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Fortunately you didn't yet report this bug to GNOME since xdg-user-dirs is actually part od Freedesktop *. I am very sorry for this confusion. New instructions are at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/Freedesktop

* As seen here: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/xdg-user-dirs

Reporting this bug to upstream takes only few minutes, ally you need is a valid email address (but I'm not ready share my private email address to the whole world).

[papukaija (papukaija)]

By the way, the original folder renaming issue ("Among other folders, ~/Desktop is renamed ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty.", from this bug's description) is already reported at bug 226436

[A-pirard-hotmail (a-pirard-hotmail)]

This was originally reported in:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-user-dirs/+bug/556933
(which, I'm afraid, someone turned into a mess)

xdg-user-dirs tries to rename standard folders
(e.g. Desktop to Bureau (French), among other languages and folders).

Renaming standard folders is incorrect because :
- there may exist references to their files that would become invalid if renamed
- if such files exist, xdg-user-dirs quite rightly does not rename the folder but just creates the new name
- but then the user's files seem to disappear
- and, for the same reason, the user cannot move his files harmlessly
- similarly, there may be references to the folder itself, even if empty
- and in fact, the Internet is full of references to ~/Desktop (which introducing xdg-user-dirs made invalid)
(that's why those folders are called "standard": their names mustn't change)

The correct way is obviously:
- to create symbolic links such as Bureau -> Desktop (instead of renaming)
- to never remove the symbolic link afterwards (in case references have been made to it)

Temporary workaround: it almost already works: this is a proof of concept:
If, before xdg-user-dirs comes to play,
- one creates the symbolic link (Bureau -> Desktop)
- one makes sure to keep the folder (Desktop) nonempty (e.g. with hidden file),
then xdg-user-dirs will not modify any name and the system will work superbly.

[A-pirard-hotmail (a-pirard-hotmail)]

*** Bug 15765 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[André Pirard (a.pirard)]

Thanks for changing your mind in time. The problem has been reported upstream:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32342

May I try once again to explain that ONE CANNOT RENAME STANDARD FOLDERS because there may exist references to them. Please stop repeating that I said that not renaming standard folders is a problem.
I SAID THAT RENAMING STANDARD FOLDERS **IS** THE PROBLEM.
Please try to understand that what I said is that symbolic links should be used INSTEAD of renaming.
("We can use symbolic links. Instead of renaming ~/Desktop, let's make a ~/Bureau -> Desktop symbolic link.")

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Since Freedesktop doesn't have a LP project, I set Debian as the project name but the actual upstream report is at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32342

[papukaija (papukaija)]

@members of bug-control: Please set the Ubuntu part of this bug to triaged as this bug has been reported to the upstream. Thanks in advance!

[A-pirard-hotmail (a-pirard-hotmail)]

PLEASE carefully read Bug 15765 for a description by Tim Miao of the problem in practical terms.

[Psy[H[] (vovik-wfa)]

I've just stumbled upon this: http://henrich-on-debian.blogspot.com/2015/03/localized-directory-name-is-harmful.html
And that reminded me of the darn whitespace in russian Desktop localization.
Links should be the answer!
I think, it is time to revive this bug.

[Gitlab-migration (gitlab-migration)]

-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-user-dirs/issues/16.