Re: Debian Package Finder, where? SUCCESS !!
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:33:44 +0100
Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
AK> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:01:24 -0700,
AK> "Dr. MacQuigg" <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote in message
AK> <[🔎] 5.2.1.1.0.20031202185117.00b14758@mail.gain.com>:
AK>
AK> > For the future:
AK> >
AK> > Wouldn't it be nice if debian.org just listed the contents of each
AK> > package on a webpage. Then we could use Google for these
AK> > searches. Why do so many websites have their own home-brew search
AK> > engines, when Google will do the job much faster and more
AK> > reliably?
AK>
AK> ..one reason not to, is the monoculture problem, according to google
AK> search experience documented over at http://groklaw.net/ , it is
AK> possible to "poison" the searches by manipulating meta tag info etc
AK> to divert tons of irrelevant stuff into SCO history searches, a lot
AK> of the stuff I find sorting SCO on dates on http://news.google.com
AK> listed as "5 minutes ago", turns out to be 5 days, weeks or months
AK> old.
AK>
AK> ..cure is, try _several_ search engines, and consider homebrewing.
AK> ;-)
Who could poison a search like
"/usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so site:packages.debian.org"
appart of debian.org admins (and, well, crackers)?
I coincide that in many aspects google is vunerable to cheap tricks (lately its returning a lot of results pointing to crappy pseudo-searchs, and some !*#$%"&"·$ are farming pages containing "Index of Name Last modified Size Description" just to fish some clicks, and trashing the best unofficial google feature), but it this particular case, the only advatange I see on a homebrew search is having more features that those on google (note to google developers: I'm still waiting for those regexps...).
Anyway, apt-file works nice, but "zgrep file Contents-i386.gz" works better! (note to apt-* developers: I'm still waiting... ;-). Thanks people.
Reply to: