On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Juhapekka Tolvanen [Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:19:19 +0300]: > >> If somebody wants to install both texmacs and mlocate, he ends up >> installing two (2) implementation of locate. > > Ok, this is the problem, not what the subjet says. I also think > important is an inflated severity, but alas, I'm not the texmacs > maintainer.
I set the bug severity to normal. >> Did you read Description of mlocate?: > > Heh, I wrote it. > lol! That makes it much easier. >> In addition installing texmacs forces user to say goodbye to security. >> Also this is from Description of mlocate: > >> "it indexes all the filesystem, but results of a search will >> only include files that the user running locate has access to. It does >> this by updating the database as root, but making it unreadable for >> normal users, who can only access it via the locate binary. slocate does >> this as well, but not the original locate." > >> But texmacs forces to install some insecure implementation of locate. > > No, "locate" is not an insecure implementation. (It just can't index > stuff that the "nobody" user can't read.) Ok. So "locate" is not an insecure implementation. From the description of the mlocate package, I see that > Also, you may wish to remove the "locate" package in order not to have > two different database files updated regularly on your system. May I ask why you are leaving the responsibility to the end user to remove the "locate" package? Why not just add a conflict to the "locate" package in mlocate's dependencies? Also, does mlocate offer all the functionality that the traditional "locate" package offers? thanks raju
