[SM-Discuss] Anyone interested in a mlocate spell?
Kevin Monceaux
Kevin at RawFedDogs.net
Tue Nov 11 09:26:11 EST 2008
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, :) but I'd like to modify
> findutils, & also take on the mlocate spell if Kevin doesn't want to
> persist with it.
I'd be happy to continue working on mlocate. It's its conflict with
findutils, and my brief switch back to Gentoo, that caused me to put it on
the back burner.
> I'm wondering which is the best way to modify findutils:
>
> 1: findutils optionally depends on mlocate.
> 2: findutils optionally doesn't install locate.
As others have pointed out, any approach one takes to remove locate from
findutils deviates from findutils' upstream. On the other hand, mlocate's
upstream conflicts with part of findutils' upstream. Should mlocate be
avoided because of that, or should users be given the choice of using
locate or mlocate as they see fit? Of course, since SMGL likes to give
users choices, maybe there should be a slocate spell also.
I've searched the net a bit to see if there's a graceful solution out
there. Most of the hits I got were on Debian mailing lists. Debian split
locate out of findutils and created a separate locate package. I think
Gentoo uses mlocate as their default locate utility. Their ebuild for
findutils removes locate from findutils via sed, no questions asked:
sed -i '/^SUBDIRS/s/locate//' Makefile.in
Neither of the above approaches fit well in SMGL's philosophy of leaving
upstream alone. Personally I much prefer mlocate over locate and hope
there is an SMGLish way to make it available.
Kevin
http://www.RawFedDogs.net
http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
Bruceville, TX
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!
More information about the SM-Discuss
mailing list