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

Re: Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> wrote:
> 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 disagree that a expecting a *working* locate is reasonable. Most
systems have a updatedb/locate *binaries installed, but many disable
the db generation.

> I am aware of
> course that findutils already provides one implementation, and it's
> Priority: required...

It is only shipped as part of the findutils package since splitting of
a 78KB package seems to be bad idea.

> 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:

New versions (1.3.x) of findutils' locate can read slocate databases
and there also exists a new updatedb binary (GSoC project) that is not
a shell script anymore. The latter still has not made it into even a
development release, though. Just as a data-point, not argueing
against a better, existing implementation. ;-)

cu  and--reas
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

Reply to: