Re: Registry for cache directories (to save backup space)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:31:56PM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:43:11 +0800
> Paul Wise <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Thomas Koch<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > while watching rsnapshot doing a backup of my laptop, I thought:
> > > Wouldn't it be fine, to have a registry of cache directories that
> > > shouldn't be backed up?
> > ...
> > > So a debian package could register all the places, where it puts
> > > caches and a system administrator could use this registry to speed
> > > up backups and save bandwidth and storage.
> > Debian is the wrong place to do that, the FreeDesktop group and
> > upstreams is the best place to do that.
> FreeDesktop is equally wrong, as not all applications are desktop
> applications (a point that is often forgotten, nowadays). The right
> place would be the FHS.
The FHS does not seem to overly care about the recommended ~/ layout.
It might be a good idea to push the XDG Base Directory spec to it once
that has (has it?) stabilized.
Debian could still start to use ~/.cache for more/all packages when we
agree on it.
> > Looks like there was discussion about this as far back as 2004:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2004-July/thread.html#2603
> > http://www.brynosaurus.com/cachedir/
> > Probably just fixing all apps to use the XDG Base Directory spec and
> > not backing up ~/.cache is enough though:
> I'm quite sure that not everyone would call that `fixing'.
That doesn't matter; what matters is that we consider it worthwhile and
do it (or not).