Mark Schouten said: > I prefer this too. I also think it is good to think about newbies, but > is it really necessary to ignore more advanced users just because they > know what they're looking for? I know I would be annoyed if locate was > missing on my server. > We're not talking about servers but only Desktop versions. Of course, on servers admin should need it.
Note I'm not hating locate by principle, but because it makes sometime computers hang without explanation. If we could use a more comprehensive way of indexing files, like Tracker does (ie when you do'nt work), this could be OK. Comparison with Tracker is not accurate because of this feature. rlocate seems to be resource-intensive too, because it needs a complete rescanning every 10 starts or so. IMHO, a workaround with find and dpkg is not so bad for occasional usages, and 'apt-get install slocate' is easy for anybody using the command-line. Colin Watson said: > Can we not come up with a way to generate the locate database > from tracker instead? Beagle does this for system-wide documentation, AFAIK. So this is possible, only taking care of the filenames. (But Beagle was eating CPU doing this too, though it is not necessary.) The dependencies point should be investigated more, but AFAIK gnome-utils (ie gnome-search-tool) doesn't depend on locate. Is it able to use find ? Anyway, I've opened a bug here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/slocate/+bug/140493 We should use it when we have found a common position. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss