where did locate go?

[ianw1974]

Well, I've only used slocate (never tried mlocate...I don't think), and most of the time I had to do an updatedb before locating, because I was trying to find something I had just installed

 

Me too, confuses me when I find a system with locate or mlocate. Solved easily though with:

 

ln -s /usr/bin/mlocate /usr/bin/slocate

 

or similar for locate if the system has locate.

[papaschtroumpf]

so I installed the mlocate package, but it seems that neither mlocate nor slocate work. locate does however.

[scarecrow]

Did you run once "updatedb" as root first?

[papaschtroumpf]

Did you run once "updatedb" as root first?

 

 

yup, as I said locate work

 

mlocatge or slocate generates "no such command"

[ianw1974]

The app probably changed, do:

 

rpm -ql mlocate | grep bin | grep locate

 

and then see what the app is called, if it's mlocate, slocate or locate. And then symlink if you prefer to use what you got used to.

[jkerr82508]

/usr/bin/locate and /usr/bin/updatedb are the executables that are included in the mlocate package.

 

Jim

[ianw1974]

So, a simple:

 

ln -s /usr/bin/locate /usr/bin/slocate

 

will help those for people used to using slocate.

[papaschtroumpf]

I always thought that slocate was a "dumbed down" safer version of locate, one that doesn't require root privileges

If that's right then symlinking slocate to locate is a "security violation"

[tyme]

slocate is a secure version of locate, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run locate as non-root. In some instances, locate is actually slocate, it's simply named differently (this depends on the distribution, I think) for ease of use.

[ianw1974]

You could run slocate as a standard user as well, so it wouldn't be the "security violation" you state.