Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Anyone interested in a mlocate spell?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: Source Mage Discuss Mailing List <SM-Discuss AT Lists.IBiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Anyone interested in a mlocate spell?
  • Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:58:25 -0500

Kevin Monceaux (Kevin AT RawFedDogs.net) wrote [08.11.11 09:26]:
> 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.

Glad you will still be working on it. :-D

> 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.

Can slocate or mlocate provide all the tools that findutils does? If
either provides more than just "locate", then I would say it would be a
good idea to create a spell for slocate and have it CONFLICTS with
findutils. To my knowledge, only findutils provides 'find' etc.
Otherwise, we will have to give users the option of hacking the locate
out of findutils and going down the messy road. Perhaps we can create a
patch to submit upstream that will disentangle locate from findutils
(like a --disable-locate configure option or similar). If you get
upstream to separate them, then we can safely separate them without
having to break from what upstream does.

--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpyB_DZxt67D.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page