[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?


I'm preparing packages for mlocate, and personally I would like to
upload it with Priority: standard. But I'm open to be convinced that is
not a good idea (eg. "standard is already bloated").

I think having a working /usr/bin/locate is a reasonable expectation for
a Linux system nowadays, so the priority level would fit. I am aware of
course that findutils already provides one implementation, and it's
Priority: required...

However, I would very much like to have a *better* implementation
installed by default, and I think mlocate would be very appropriate for
the job:

  * as slocate, it runs and root instead of nobody in order to index all
    files, but keeps it's database mode 640 root:mlocate, and a setgid
    binary /usr/bin/locate in order to only return results the running
    user has access to


  * mlocate keeps timestamps in its database, so when running updatedb
    it can determine if the contents of a directory have changed without
    having to read its contents; this makes the update faster, and less
    demanding on the harddist (that's where the name comes from, "merge

mlocate is written by a RedHat person, is maintained upstream (unlike,
it seems, slocate), and if I'm not mistaken is already default in Fedora.


Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make
a decision.

Reply to: