| 1 |
G'day |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Andrey Falko <ma3oxuct@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Gaydenko <a@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Hi! |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Are there (emerge/revdep-rebuild/other portage tools related) situations |
| 9 |
> > when fs db creating is useful? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Andrew |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I believe there are. I used to use slocate when I had tens of |
| 17 |
> thousands of mp3s and other media files. Its a lot of times its faster |
| 18 |
> to use slocate or locate than a find to find a certain file. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
I believe the OP's intentions are to determine if slocate would have any |
| 22 |
benefit specifically for portage related utilities. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And with that, there would not be any benefit to the average user IMHO, as |
| 25 |
slocate is updated usually nightly ( when installed ) and as such if the |
| 26 |
utilities were using the results obtained from that utility, it might apply |
| 27 |
changes which would be detrimental to the system, assuming changes have been |
| 28 |
made to portage or installed apps since the updatedb run. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Beau "Did It!" Henderson |
Archives