Re: Registry for cache directories (to save backup space)
On 23/08/2009 Michael Banck wrote:
> 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.
that would be very useful for privacy reasons as well. currently it's
very hard to keep control over all the places where applications put
caches, histories, etc.
therefore it's nearly impossible to remove traces that applications left
on the system. thus a default place for cache would be a first great step
in the right direction.
next step would be a standardized place for command and file histories,
which currently are scattered all over the home directory:
.recently-used, .recently-used.xbel, .viminfo, .lesshst, .bash_history,