Le 26/11/2012 à 17:28, Jeff Davidson < email@hidden> a écrit : Our tolerances for frivolous use of disk space are clearly not the same, and both of ours are probably different from the OP's. Thus, my definition of what's reasonable here is almost certainly different from yours or Luther's.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a development package with the sophistication of Xcode to not duplicate or triplicate (or, good heavens, quadruplicate) static documentation, regardless of a dearth or abundance of disk space.
For the record, your user directory alone is 50% larger than my entire SSD. I keep my music and movie archives on a different drive for that very reason.
Regards,
~Jeff
I don't use a SSD device but a 1Tbyte HD so I feel free to keep music and applications dedicated to my wife's iPad in my account so that I'm warned when an update is available.
For sure, as Xcode is stored in the global Application folder, it would be coherent to store the Xcode documentation in the global Library folder. But, as I'm not accustomed to rely upon possible enhancements delivered by Apple, if I had need for three accounts in a short device, I would try to create one or two symlink of the folder storing the Developer documentation.
Apple made some choices which aren't matching your wishes. Just an example. When iWork was delivered as a package, the three applications shared resources stored in : Macintosh HD:Library:Application Support:iWork '09:
Now that the applications are delivered separately thru App Store, each one embed it's own copy of the set of resources.
In this case, it's clearly a deliberate choice : must match App Store rules.
For Xcode, I'm not sure that it's a deliberate choice. I guess that some one didn't use his brain before defining the folder dedicated to the documentation.
So i add my vote to Alex suggestion.
Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 26 novembre 2012 18:14:06
|