From: Bron Gondwana Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:58:00 GMT Subject: Re: Why /var/cache/git? Message-ID: <20101026205800.GA6544@brong.net> In-Reply-To: <20101026152218.3931.qmail@d862ae2b10e11a.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:22:18PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:21:39AM -0400, Drew Northup wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 12:22 +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > I have no problem with /var/git - it's /var/cache/git that worries > > > me, since the FHS quite clearly says that blowing away /var/cache/* > > > is not a problem. It makes sense to back up /var/lib/ on any machine, > > > since that's somewhere that contains application data. We already > > > back up a few things from /var/lib (like /var/lib/svn for example, > > > at least until we finish this switchover!) > > > > Bron, > > Doing a 'git grep "/var"' on the git sources and then searching that > > output for "cache" turns up nothing. I think you'd best bring this up > > with the Debian package maintainer. Debian is well known for thinking it > > knows better than the original authors where stuff should be--and that's > > why I don't run Debian as a server (too much time spent transliterating > > paths just to make stuff work properly--when I'm lucky; it makes an > > excellent desktop for beginners). > > Hi, it's also not my preference, but Debian adheres to the FHS. > Unfortunately /var/git is not allowed by the FHS, so a different > location must be chosen for Debian. I chose /var/cache/git/, and > suggested to populate that directory with symlinks to the repositories > that should be available through git-daemon or gitweb, see > http://bugs.debian.org/483788 Maybe you'd better read the FHS again to double check that you're adhering. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARCACHEAPPLICATIONCACHEDATA Purpose: /var/cache is intended for cached data from applications. Such data is locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or calculation. The application must be able to regenerate or restore the data. I fail to see how git can regenerate the symlinks... Bron.