Comment 23 for bug 189462

Colin Watson (cjwatson) wrote :

My apologies that the Ubuntu team has taken so long to get around to dealing with this bug.

Matt LaPlante: Thanks for your patch! My feeling is that causing slocate to own /etc/updatedb.conf is probably not actually the best approach here. Doing that introduces questions of upgrade handling (as is often the case when files move between packages) which aren't easy to answer quickly. It might be the case that it all works out, but we'd have to consider dapper->hardy-updates, hardy->hardy-updates, hardy-updates->lucid, etc., and ideally for a stable update I'd prefer that we could say confidently that no such issues will arise.

Can I suggest using something like /etc/updatedb.conf.slocate instead, passing the appropriate -c parameter to slocate? This should be safer. I know it's a bit of a pain for the configuration file not to be the same as in other releases, but since its contents and package ownership vary anyway, and since this was already broken for hardy users who haven't followed our move to mlocate, I think this should be OK.