Cache directory tagging proposal, version 0.2

Colin Walters walters at
Sat Jul 24 17:35:06 EEST 2004

On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 00:19 +0200, Bryan Ford wrote:
> For those interested, I have updated my cache directory tagging proposal to 
> "version 0.2" based on feedback on this list and elsewhere.  Again, it's at:

First, I completely agree with your goals here.  It's very annoying to
keep adding things to exclude from rdiff-backup and the like.  You
should really ping the ccache people too.  By default it will keep a
gigabyte in your ~, which makes it a perfect candidate for this.

> While nothing really substantive has changed in this version, I've fleshed out 
> the introduction and Alternative Approaches sections, particularly in order 
> to clarify the reasons it is not sufficient just to standardize the locations 
> where applications place their caches, 

I'm not so sure about this.  I think it could be quite useful to try to
standardize something with the FHS.  This problem is very obviously in
their domain.  The major problem with /var/cache is that it's not per-
user.  The solution to that is to have something
like /var/cache/users/$USER.  Once the FHS has standardized it, we can
change the xdg basedir spec to default to that (if it exists).

However, even if the FHS standardizes it, deployment will take some
time.  In the meantime, .IsCacheDirectory makes sense as a transitional
mechanism for FHS systems, and would remain useful on non-FHS systems.

But systems which deploy the FHS solution would benefit from not having
to modify all their tools.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list