On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 22:01, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@...> wrote:
On 10/4/23 07:52, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
found same and was also disappointed. but a simple "updatedb" creates the needed db and allows plocate/locate to function as before.
I've read the entire thread and still have not seen a reason as to "Why?" this was done.
The issue to me is if I want mlocate installed instead of plocate, why isn't that fine? Why are we now sticking "obsoletes" in spec files to force the user to change packages?
This seems like something that would be better as a notice or recommendation when mlocate is updated (not the technical zypper "recommends"), but a simple text output (or yast summary) of "plocate is recommended instead of mlocate, change packages (n/Y)?" Much like zypper/yast does for repo changes for packages.
Obviously, "obsoletes" makes sense if mlocate has a security problem and is no longer maintained upstream, but I haven't seen that as the reason.
So "Why?" is plocate replacing mlocate, and can there be a notice and choice given to the user?
In short, & in part: 1a. mlocate code is stale and has been so for quite some time. (Thankfully no security issues have been found so far) 1b. plocate code is active in maintainance and development. 2. plocate user side (locate cmd) is a good deal faster than that of mlocate, even and esp. on older hardware. 3. comparing plocate and mlocate user side shows little difference, low learning curve on swap. (other alternatives differ more, or much more) - Yamaban.