On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:31:56PM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote: > On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:43:11 +0800 > Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Thomas Koch<tho...@koch.ro> 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). Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org