Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Kevin Monceaux <Kevin AT RawFedDogs.net>]

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!!!