Hmm, this change somehow seems counter-intuitive.

Also, check what the FHS says about this (5.5 and 5.15):

https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch05.html

Especially that stuff in /var/tmp is deleted "less frequently", but in a site-specific (not: app-specific) manner seems to make it unsuitable for application cache files. Cache files are not temporary files, they are just files that can be rebuilt (but that might be expensive, so you don't want some external "site cleanup cron job" delete that stuff).

Maybe the only thing that caused the initial issue (see top post) with /var/cache is that the package installation script (running as root) would need to create a subdirectory (like /var/cache/APPNAME) there with suitable permissions?

@ThomasWaldmann The application was not installed by root, but user-installed applications want to share expensive cache between users as well. In practical terms it seems systemd will delete files that weren't even read by anyone in /var/tmp once a month https://systemd.io/TEMPORARY_DIRECTORIES , which could be considered a free cache expiration policy 😄

I agree that /var/cache seems more suitable on paper, hence why I implemented it like that initially. But app-specific and site-specific don't seem mutually exclusive to me, as it is normal that the site has its own cache policy (e.g. when running low on space). I totally get that this is stretching /var/tmp a bit. Maybe what we need here is site_tmp_dir with persistent(or some other name) option to switch from /tmp to /var/tmp? Wdyt?

/var/tmp is an insecure location to store anything with a predictable filename, because any other user could have written it first. This leads to vulnerabilities categorized under CWE-377 and CAPEC-149.

This breaking change in platformdirs’ behavior is especially dangerous because it will have introduced these vulnerabilities into applications that were previously secure!

@ThomasWaldmann is correct that applications should put their own cache data in a subdirectory of /var/cache (e.g. /var/cache/cups), and the application’s package is responsible for ensuring the subdirectory exists and giving it the correct permissions.

Please consider reverting this.

is correct that applications should put their own cache data in a subdirectory of /var/cache (e.g. /var/cache/cups), and the application’s package is responsible for ensuring the subdirectory exists and giving it the correct permissions.

Open a PR with this change. We do not plan to revert.

Opened #239.

This breaking change in platformdirs’ behavior is especially dangerous because it will have introduced these vulnerabilities into applications that were previously secure!

Just to be clear, site_cache_dir was introduced about a week before this PR, realistically I doubt anyone was using it during that period.

Opened #239.

Thanks, let's continue there.