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

[Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es>]

* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:19:16 +0100]:

> I guess it would need happen like this:

> 1. upload findutils with splitoff locate to experimental. The locate
> package (Is this name ok?) ships /usr/bin/locate.findutils and
> /usr/bin/updatedb.findutils. It installs low-priority alterntives for
> these. The package conflicts with slocate (<< the next version, i.e.
> 3.1-1.2). It conflicts/replaces findutils (<=4.3.8-1, which is the
> last vesion living in experimental.)

Sounds good, and I think locate as package name is appropriate. Is there
an ETA for uploading 4.3.8 to unstable?

> > I guess dlocate would need an
> > upload as well.

> > How to handle the cron.daily script, though?

> +[ -e /usr/bin/updatedb.findutils ] || exit 0
> +  cd / && nice -n ${NICE:-10} updatedb.findutils 2>/dev/null

Well, I should've been more verbose: that patch will run updatedb even
if findutil's locate is installed but not the selected alternative. Now
that I think about it, maybe:

  [ `readlink -f /usr/bin/updatedb` = /usr/bin/updatedb.findutils ] || exit 0

(And the same for mlocate *and* slocate). How does it sound?

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
 
And don't get me wrong - I don't mind getting proven wrong. I change my
opinions the way some people change underwear. And I think that's ok.
                -- Linus Torvalds