Re: plocate?

[Michal Sekletar]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:25 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:

>  I agree. Plocate/mlocate is useful technology, but it's not important
>  enough to justify maintaining two or three different implementations.
>  If we can make plocate cover all bases, and it's faster, I'd just make
>  it *the* implementation. Let's get the agreement of mlocate maintainer
>  first though. Michal, wdyt?
>
>  
Hi everyone,

I agree that we should transition to the newer (faster and well maintained)
implementation and in the long run we should have only one locate
implementation in the distribution. However, I think we should have some
transition period (e.g. two Fedora release cycles), during which both
packages will be present. Introducing alternatives scaffolding seems like
an overkill for something that is going away in a year, hence plain
Conflits: tag would be enough. As for maintenance, I think that having an
older (mlocate) package available for a year or so while we iron out
potential compat issues or bugs shouldn't add too much work.

Zbigniew, please take plocate through the review process and once it is
included in the distro I am willing to take up (co)maintenance of the
package.

Cheers,
Michal