On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 07:42:57AM +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 04:54:49AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:57:11AM +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 02:35:54AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > > > yeah, but wasn't the original issue that started this thread was that
> > > > the locate database was "too old"?  maybe if locate, apropos, etc would
> > > > print "databse last updated 3 weeks 2 days ago"?
> > >  
> > > This should be done in any case. IMHO it's a bug if they don't complain
> > > loudly, or even refuse to run with a stale database. Stale caches are
> > > evil, even if the man page warns about them.
> > 
> > yeah, but if your computer hasn't been on for 3 weeks and then locate
> > won't work because the database is 3 weeks old, that would suck.
>  
> Of course it would need a switch to force it to run. But I guess a
> warning is better since locate might be used in scripts and it's not
> good to add extra knobs to existing programs where they don't gain much.
> 

God, that would be annoying. You're essentially asking for a damned
talking paperclip: "OMG a potential error I haven't the ability to
diagnose may or may not have occurred! I am refusing to do the thing
you just specifically asked me to do! Would you like some help
drafting a suicide note?"

Reply via email to