On 12/9/05, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So this is not-disposable data needing protection. I translate this into > data that must be preserved. If it's not preserved it's not really > protected, right ? More evidence that communicating in English is inherently prone to miscommunication. Disposable and re-generatable are not perfectly equivalent concepts. While by definition data in the cache filesystem can be re-generated when needed for tool operation, nothing says it preferable to re-generate if it can be avoided. Yum's clean policy is coded to avoid unnecessary re-generation. In fact, because cached items are defined to be resource intensive to generate in the FHS definition for /var/cache ... i think that automatically implies that well coded tools treat the cache conservatively when removals are done to avoid wasteful calculation or i/o when re-generating cache later that could have been avoided. Its the difference between doing something just because the action is strictly allowed and refraining from doing something to avoid doing more unncessary work later to re-generate time or i/o intensive cache when it can be avoided. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
