GNU bug report logs -
#48543
Feature request: put ELN cache in $XDG_CACHE_HOME by default
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 48543 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Thu, 20 May 2021 17:26:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Clément Pit-Claudel <cpitclaudel <at> gmail.com>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
.
(Thu, 20 May 2021 17:26:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi all,
By default the eln cache is stored in .emacs.d/eln-cache. Would it make sense to store it in $XDG_CACHE_HOME/emacs/eln by default on platforms that obey the XDG spec?
I came across this because my backup scripts already exclude $XDG_CACHE_HOME, but didn't exclude .emacs.d/eln-cache, so I found myself backing up hundreds of megabytes of ELN files.
In a related Reddit discussion, https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/mltaie/gccemacs_how_to_permanently_change_where_elncache , Steve Purcell wrote:
> Now that emacs honours xdg settings for finding its own config, might it make sense for the eln cache to move to the xdg cache directory?
And Eli Zaretskii responded:
> I don't think so, personally: the XDG spec says the XDG cache directory should hold "user-specific non-essential (cached) data files". The *.eln files don't fit that description: the user would like the files to persist.
>
> That said, feel free to submit a feature-request bug report about this, and let's see what others think about this.
FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:10:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Clément Pit-Claudel <cpitclaudel <at> gmail.com> writes:
> By default the eln cache is stored in .emacs.d/eln-cache. Would it
> make sense to store it in $XDG_CACHE_HOME/emacs/eln by default on
> platforms that obey the XDG spec?
I think that makes sense. Perhaps Andrea has some comments; added to
the CCs.
> And Eli Zaretskii responded:
>
>> I don't think so, personally: the XDG spec says the XDG cache
>> directory should hold "user-specific non-essential (cached) data
>> files". The *.eln files don't fit that description: the user would
>> like the files to persist.
>>
>> That said, feel free to submit a feature-request bug report about
>> this, and let's see what others think about this.
>
> FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that
> chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS
> bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
Since the .eln files are cached data, it seems like the right place to
put them. Of course the user would like all (non-stale) cached data to
persist.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:44:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Cc: 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Andrea Corallo <akrl <at> sdf.org>
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:08:56 +0200
>
> >> I don't think so, personally: the XDG spec says the XDG cache
> >> directory should hold "user-specific non-essential (cached) data
> >> files". The *.eln files don't fit that description: the user would
> >> like the files to persist.
> >>
> >> That said, feel free to submit a feature-request bug report about
> >> this, and let's see what others think about this.
> >
> > FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that
> > chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS
> > bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
>
> Since the .eln files are cached data, it seems like the right place to
> put them. Of course the user would like all (non-stale) cached data to
> persist.
So we prefer to hear more complaints about Emacs being slow to start
because the eln-cache was purged? Don't forget that the XDG
directories can disappear without a warning.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:47:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> > FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that
>> > chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS
>> > bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
>>
>> Since the .eln files are cached data, it seems like the right place to
>> put them. Of course the user would like all (non-stale) cached data to
>> persist.
>
> So we prefer to hear more complaints about Emacs being slow to start
> because the eln-cache was purged? Don't forget that the XDG
> directories can disappear without a warning.
This doesn't seem to worry the Chromium etc people, so I don't think it
should worry us.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:10:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[புதன் ஜூலை 13, 2022] Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> > FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that
>>> > chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS
>>> > bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
>>>
>>> Since the .eln files are cached data, it seems like the right place to
>>> put them. Of course the user would like all (non-stale) cached data to
>>> persist.
>>
>> So we prefer to hear more complaints about Emacs being slow to start
>> because the eln-cache was purged? Don't forget that the XDG
>> directories can disappear without a warning.
>
> This doesn't seem to worry the Chromium etc people, so I don't think it
> should worry us.
Why not use XDG_DATA_HOME in that case? It doesn't get cleared I think.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:41:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> > FWIW, I had a quick look through my .cache folder, and it seems that
>>> > chromium and Firefox both put compiled code in that folder (JS
>>> > bytecode and compiled Webassembly files).
>>>
>>> Since the .eln files are cached data, it seems like the right place to
>>> put them. Of course the user would like all (non-stale) cached data to
>>> persist.
>>
>> So we prefer to hear more complaints about Emacs being slow to start
>> because the eln-cache was purged? Don't forget that the XDG
>> directories can disappear without a warning.
>
> This doesn't seem to worry the Chromium etc people, so I don't think it
> should worry us.
Hi Lars,
thanks for adding me in Cc.
Browser speed is tipically dominated by the internet/web server
bandwidth and it's therfore very variable. Users will hardly notice if
a page loads slower because the cache was removed and complain, this is
indeed not the case for Emacs as program.
Also given the XDG spec definition I'm not sure this move would be the
right thing.
Best Regards
Andrea
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48543
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:02:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 48543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Why not use XDG_DATA_HOME in that case?
I realize that the XDG Base Directory Specification could be more clear
on these details, but I believe that a study of the current practices as
well as previous discussions on e.g. the XDG mailing list, in Debian,
Arch and so on, would lead to the conclusion that this would be wrong.
It is generally understood that XDG_DATA_HOME is roughly analogus to
/usr/share and XDG_CACHE_HOME is roughly analogous to /var/cache -- one
is volatile, the other one is not.
For starters, please compare the contents of ~/.local/share with
~/.cache on your machine to see what other software puts where.
Next, to understand how these issues are often approached, I invite you
to study references such as:
https://wiki.debian.org/XDGBaseDirectorySpecification
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_Base_Directory
https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259356
There are more to find obviously, but that should be plenty to get the
discussion started.
> It doesn't get cleared I think.
AFAIK, $XDG_CACHE_HOME also doesn't "get cleared" arbitrarily. There
has to be some action on behalf of the user for that to happen.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 341 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.