On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 01:45:14PM -0600, Nathan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems like it'd be a simple and useful feature to add an option to
> "find" which would instruct it to use the updatedb database, instead
> of searching the filesystem.
This is terribly non-trivial, as it would for example be
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:47:47AM +0200, Buzz wrote:
> I've since done some testing. The speed-gain is only ca. 0.5%.
> The difference in binary-size is however also tiny.
>
> If, when you're back, you say you /still/ prefer to do without
> visit_found, I'll prepare another patch.
That's what I
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: Op Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:16 +0100 schreef James Youngman
: in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:: On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:10:55PM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote:
[...]
:: > Following patch moves limit-checking and counting in
Hello,
It seems like it'd be a simple and useful feature to add an option to
"find" which would instruct it to use the updatedb database, instead
of searching the filesystem.
The advantage is that new comers would no longer have to learn the
commandline for both find and locate, and the expressiv
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #13495 (project findutils):
I like the patch, but would prefer to switch back to RE_SYNTAX_EMACS as
default, which is *afaict* what find up to 4.2.20 used.
I've thought a little bit about this and have realized that breaking backwards
compability could be _very_ painful
