| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 20/12/12 12:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> The FHS says: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> /var/cache is intended for cached data from applications. Such |
| 7 |
>> data is locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or |
| 8 |
>> calculation. The application must be able to regenerate or restore |
| 9 |
>> the data. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Now I wonder: After removal of e.g. the Portage tree from a system, |
| 12 |
>> it is generally not possible to restore it. (It can be refetched, |
| 13 |
>> but not to its previous state.) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Same is true for distfiles, at least to some degree. They may have |
| 16 |
>> vanished upstream or from mirrors. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Maybe /var/lib would be a better choice? It would also take care |
| 19 |
>> of the issue with fetch-restricted files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I had asked more or less the same thing a few days ago. The cases |
| 22 |
> where this would matter are few, however, and those users that need |
| 23 |
> the state preserved could ensure it by including these specific paths |
| 24 |
> in their backups and/or ensuring any cache-cleaner scripts (and AFAIK |
| 25 |
> there aren't any that wouldn't be custom-installed) do not remove them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
What about /usr/portage/licenses, for example? Some of the licenses |
| 28 |
are required to be present on the system if the corresponding software |
| 29 |
is installed. So users cannot legally remove them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Should we really put them under /var/cache which suggests that |
| 32 |
everything in there can be wiped? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Ulrich |
Archives