[Tfug] fhs on /var/cache (debian)

[t takahashi]

hi john,

hope you've adapted to the humidity.

to avoid further misunderstandings, my points were:

1.  varcache should (imao) be a cache.

2.  fhs says it should be a cache.

3.  debian says that debian follows fhs.

4.  debian does not follow fhs (i tested it).

5.  it does #4 with reckless abandon (i tested it).

6.  my question: has anybody besides me confirmed it empirically (i.e.
by testing it on a whole system systematically from boot time -- not
just deleting one apt dir on a running system)?

did you think i was saying something else?  it seems like you did,
because you are saying #1 and #2, which were *my own* points -- i even
included the fhs definition!  (it's kind of like i say x is true, then
you say "no, you're wrong!  x is true!")

you disagree with #4 and #5.

1.  does this mean that you also tested it the hard way (i.e. by
booting to clean systems without /var/cache and without /var/cache
files respectively and trying various programs) as i did and got
different results?  if so, i'd like to know your results if you would
like to share them.

or

2.  does it mean that you believe that if dpkg works (not yet
confirmed), then the system is not broken?  if so, i respectfully
disagree.

my definition of "the system is not broken" is that you can update and
upgrade your debian system and get it to a completely working state
without too much effort.  if you can't, then it is broken.

you must be using a different definition, because here is your comment on #4:

> In this case, this system is not broken.

the system is broken by my definition, since dpkg without the apt
tools cannot easily update and upgrade the system to a completely
working state.  the apt tools patently violate the fhs (i tested them
the hard way).  therefore the system as a whole violates the fhs.  (in
my view.)

> That's why, save for the debconf stuff, you don't necessarily need to back
> up
> /var/cache.  It can be easily recreated if necessary.  Contrast that with

did you try it for yourself the hard way?  i did.

> If you didn't back it up to begin with, you can just have apt fetch it again
> for you.

not true.  i tested it the hard way.  did you?  if you got different
results, please tell me, because it means that my testing was flawed
or my system was in a different state.

> ....  To
> achieve identical results with some non-apt program, you're essentially
> looking at another implementation of a front end.  ...

that is exactly my point when i asked if you can easily emulate apt
with dpkg.  this means that apt *is* critical (by my definition).  and
therefore #5 applies, not just #4, (in my view).

so did you do the testing i did, or are you just repeating the fhs's
implication that it *should* work?

in any case, thanks for replying.  perhaps you *are* trying to provide
information that i didn't already put in my post, but it's not clear
from your posts.

-- 
Webmaster: do you believe that people will (a) switch browsers to view
your "best viewed with" page or (b) go to your competitor?