Re: Standardizing ~/.cache/ and similar things.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Interesting, but very specific to the caching example. There are other
useful parts of the proposal, too: e.g. if libraries are in ~/lib then
its easy to have $LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/lib work on multiple
On Sep 19, Alastair McKinstry <email@example.com> wrote:
Unlike Marco, I do see a lot of value in reorganising at least _some_ of
the 'configuration' files of users: seperating out .mozilla web caches
and .evolution IMAP caches greatly relieves the size of backups of ~/
directories. If all caches were in one directory it would make it
What about http://www.brynosaurus.com/cachedir/spec.html ?
tar supports it.
for an installer to install an application into a users directory. For this
reason I prefer $HOME/var , $HOME/lib, etc. to .lib, .cache, .bin, etc.
possible to fit a slimmed /home on a single .iso to archive / backup,
for example, whereas now it takes 2 DVDs due to IMAP and web caches,
It's not like it's an Herculean task to add a couple of directories to
the exclude list of your backup program...
This is the wrong way round, IMHO: rather than having to examine every
new application I use to see what config files and caches it creates
(and never be sure of that: what files in .evolution can I safely remove as
caches, and what ones are essential config? is it safe to remove / not
backup $HOME/.evolution/IMAP/* ? ), and add them to my backup
program excludes list, I can just add /home/var/cache/* to my excludes
list and change applications to use it. No need to keep a list of
cache directories up-to-date.