Le 27/12/2025 à 01:15, Steve Litt a écrit :
> Joel Roth via Dng said on Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:29:29 -1000
...
> Like Santa, I've been making a list:
>
> 1. Compare, generate list of differences
> 2. Strip out irrelevant bits, such as browser cache files
> 3. Recast the sword from the various pieces
> 4. Examine all my devices, as I am seeing some SMART error
> msgs on one portable drive that I use for backups.
>
> You mentioned irrelevant bits such as browser cache. This is why my
> important data is under a tree called /d . Of course, strict believers
> in the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) would consider this heresy,
> but it sure does offer backup and restore advantages by completely
> separating irreplaceable stuff from config, cache, etc.
>
> In my opinion FHS made complete sense back in the days of multiuser
> computing, with each user having a minimum amount of data. Today, with
> personal computers, throwing your hard gained data in the same tree as
> config, cache, and various other debris. I also back up my home
> directory so as to get my config, but it's a less valuable backup than
> my tax returns or a book that took 9 months to write.

    Like everyone, I'd like to find a good policy. I'm curently
backing-up all my home, where all my personal data is. I agree that
cache files don't deserve backup, but I wouldn't say that for config
files. It takes me half a day to configure my Xfce4 DE everytime I
re-install it, because my prefered config is very far of the default.
Emacs config is even more complicated. And this also true for several
other applications: bookmarks and toolbars in browsers, address-books
and imap servers in Thunderbird...

    I use rsync for backup. I suppose the best method would be to build
an exclude file for the cache files ant this sort of junk.

--      Didier