Re: Proposal: plocate as standard for bookworm
Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> writes:
> * Steinar H. Gunderson <sesse@debian.org> [210209 14:27]:
>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 08:53:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> > And there are now also many non-technical Linux users who have never
>> > used a shell.
>>
>> Well, why do we include netcat, telnet or hdparm? lsof? pciutils?
>> traceroute? host? All of these are irrelevant for a non-technical
>> non-shell user, yet a fairly common part of a Linux installation.
>
> These have come to be expected to be on a typical Linux system by almost
> every technically-knowledgeable Linux user. Locate does not satisfy
> that criterion, and I think the dissension in this thread is evidence of
> that.
This is subjective. I don't think arguing about the expectations of
"every technically-knowledgeable Linux user" is going to bring the
discussion anywhere.
FWIW, locate was "always" there. Before Linux and before PCI.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locate_(Unix).
> However, I agree with others here that anyone who wants a locate
> implementation will know how to find all the packages with "locate" in
> their names and plocate looks to me, from the descriptions, to be the
> best choice. I don't think it deserves "Priority: standard".
I happen to disagree. To me this is yet another step away from being a
proper Unix system - to something else. Which would be fine if it moved
us forward.
But removing functionality can hardly be argued to be a move in the
forward direction?
Sure, I can install mlocate or plocate. But it's the kind of tool you
expect to be present, with an uptodate database, when you need it. The
database makes locate different from all the other tools you mention.
I also use Linux systems I don't admininstrate. I'd hate to have to ask
the admin for every basic Unix tool I need. Some of the standard tools
you mention are only relevant for admins. Those don't need to be
standard. But the ones that are relevant for users should be.
Bjørn
Reply to: