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?"
