From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7AF90868
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:52:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CA90116195
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:52:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:52:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BD0C4784D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:52:20 +0100 (CET)
References: <20240201134944.525535-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
 <4a7cffae-72d9-440c-8997-b5450b8a9339@proxmox.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 29.1
From: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:46:53 +0100
In-reply-to: <4a7cffae-72d9-440c-8997-b5450b8a9339@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <s8o34tyf1rg.fsf@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.002 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH backup v3] fix-3699: pbs-client/tools: use
 xdg basedirectories for tmp files
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:52:21 -0000


Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> writes:

>> +pub fn create_tmp_file() -> std::io::Result<std::fs::File> {
>
> Hmm, wondering if "create_xdg_tmp_file" could be slightly better here,
> but the fallback behavior is not the best fit with that name, so no
> hard feelings from my side.

Since this indeed can create files outside of XDG_CACHE_HOME I opted for
not putting `xdg` in the fn name. It is also a bit more future-proof in
case the function is refactored/modified. No strong opinions anyways.

I will send a v4 today.

--
Maximiliano