Mike Hommey writes (Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought:
mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)):
Maybe with the new symbols thing in dpkg-shlibdeps, the new package
installation toolstack would not depend on the new libc... but there's
no guarantee
Joey Hess writes (Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority:
standard?):
Given the security history of slocate, and since mlocate has a similar
design from a security POV, it would be good to get a thurough audit of
mlocate, perhaps trying some of the same holes. At least
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:57:29 +0100]:
Hello,
FYI I think we have got most pieces now:
- GNU locate package in experimental (Priority: optional) split-off
from findutils, using update-alternatives. The locate package
conflicts with slocate (= 3.1-1.1). The respective
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable
already?
I think so, I intend to upload findutils on saturday or sunday.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable
already?
I think so, I intend to upload findutils on saturday or sunday.
Please, take care to upload findutils before mlocate to avoid
mistake with aptitude
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:28:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions
sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)):
I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
aptitude prior to performing
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
[...]
* No locate should have standard priority as long as findutils
contains locate.
* locate should move out of findutils into a separate package.
* Once that happens, if any locate should have priority standard,
mlocate should.
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:57:29 +0100]:
Hello,
FYI I think we have got most pieces now:
- GNU locate package in experimental (Priority: optional) split-off
from findutils, using update-alternatives. The locate package
conflicts with slocate (= 3.1-1.1). The respective
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 06:55:01PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I've also uploaded mlocate to experimental now (needs NEW processing).
Great, I'll give it a spin :) If you want more testing you could post an
appropriate message to d-u.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:11:04AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:28:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions
sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)):
I think you mean that Ian Jackson
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:43:57 +0100]:
I would propose to simply have the GNU locate package
use find-daily.defaults instead of /etc/updatedb.conf.
Sounds good. How will you handle the migration from /etc/updatedb.conf?
How about rm'ing
Ivan Shmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
$ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.findutils
[...]
$ cat /etc/cron.daily/update-locate
#!/bin/sh
if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-locate ]; then
/usr/sbin/update-locate
fi
Or am I missing something?
The fact that people might want to change with
Steve Langasek writes (Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions
sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)):
I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade. :) The release notes haven't
always recommended
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.findutils
[...]
$ cat /etc/cron.daily/update-locate
#!/bin/sh
if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-locate ]; then
/usr/sbin/update-locate
fi
Or am I missing something?
The fact that people might want to change
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.
I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's locate can
be installed only as a dependency of other
Ivan Shmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to
the same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This
reduces the cron.daily script to a
Ivan Shmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.
I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's locate can
be
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to the
same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This reduces
the cron.daily script to a single line of code
* Felipe Sateler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:06:12 -0300]:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:
I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
pointless?
apt supports it since 0.7.0.
I thought we weren't supposed to use it until apt
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Felipe Sateler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:06:12 -0300]:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:
I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
pointless?
apt supports
* Andreas Metzler [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:43:57 +0100]:
I would propose to simply have the GNU locate package
use find-daily.defaults instead of /etc/updatedb.conf.
Sounds good. How will you handle the migration from /etc/updatedb.conf?
How about rm'ing from findutils postinst if the md5sum
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:
[...]
How does mlocate.updatedb handle updatedb.conf? Does the binary read
the file on every execution or does it also rely on wrapper script
(the cron job) to source it? findutils works the latter way
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:31:29 +0100]:
[...]
I did consider it, but afaik the pulled-in-by-dependency-szenario is
going to be rare.
Well, dlocate has 2500 popcon installations, vs. slocate's 1500. So, I'm
still convinced findutil's
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:13:20 +0100]:
2. After verifying it works, we upload to unstable
(mlocate+conflicts, locate+conflicts, findutils+breaks),
Forgot to say, the Conflicts: findutils (= 4.3.8-1) need to be changed
to use = 4.2.31-1 when uploading to unstable. Just
* Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:31:29 +0100]:
[...]
I did consider it, but afaik the pulled-in-by-dependency-szenario is
going to be rare.
Well, dlocate has 2500 popcon installations, vs.
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:
I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
pointless?
apt supports it since 0.7.0.
I thought we weren't supposed to use it until apt 0.7.0 reaches stable?
--
Felipe Sateler
--
To
* Andreas Metzler [Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:31:29 +0100]:
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.
I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.
I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's locate can be
installed only as a dependency of other packages.
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Why not remove locate from findutils instead of putting it into a
separate package? I can't see any reason why one would need it if
there's mlocate. Probably add a Recommends: mlocate to findutils.
dlocate iirc depends on
* Joey Hess [Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:47:40 -0500]:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Thus, I would argue that:
* No locate should have standard priority as long as findutils
contains locate.
* locate should move out of findutils into a separate package.
* Once that happens, if any locate should have
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Okay, thanks. Andreas, how does the idea of splitting locate/updatedb
out from findutils sound to you, to follow the above plan? (dlocate can
Depend: on locate | findutils (= 4.3.8-X) then.)
If we have got (at least temporarily) three locate
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:08:50 +0100]:
If we have got (at least temporarily) three locate packages in Debian
we probably need to switch to alternatives. (Currently slocate uses
dpkg-divert.)
Yes, though the slocate maintainer scripts scare the hell out of me, and
ISTR that the
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:08:50 +0100]:
we probably need to switch to alternatives. (Currently slocate uses
dpkg-divert.)
Yes, though the slocate maintainer scripts scare the hell out of me, and
ISTR that the maintainer is somewhat MIA.
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:19:16 +0100]:
I guess it would need happen like this:
1. upload findutils with splitoff locate to experimental. The locate
package (Is this name ok?) ships /usr/bin/locate.findutils and
/usr/bin/updatedb.findutils. It installs low-priority alterntives
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sounds good, and I think locate as package name is appropriate. Is there
an ETA for uploading 4.3.8 to unstable?
No, not yet. But once stuff works in experimental (and all components
have gone through the necessary NEW processing) the respective
* Andreas Metzler [Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:41:07 +0100]:
No, not yet. But once stuff works in experimental (and all components
have gone through the necessary NEW processing) the respective change
could go to 4.2.x.
Ah, very well then.
Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if
On Nov 11, 2007 10:38 PM, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we have got (at least temporarily) three locate packages in Debian
we probably need to switch to alternatives. (Currently slocate uses
dpkg-divert.)
Why do we need 3 packages that do the same thing slightly differently?
Adeodato Simó wrote:
I'm preparing packages for mlocate, and personally I would like to
upload it with Priority: standard. But I'm open to be convinced that is
not a good idea (eg. standard is already bloated).
I think having a working /usr/bin/locate is a reasonable expectation for
a Linux
Josh Triplett wrote:
Thus, I would argue that:
* No locate should have standard priority as long as findutils
contains locate.
* locate should move out of findutils into a separate package.
* Once that happens, if any locate should have priority standard,
mlocate should.
* However, I
39 matches
Mail list logo
