pacman 3.0.0 in testing

phrakture · 2007-03-26 08:48:08

From archlinux.org news section

toofishes wrote:

It's been a long time coming, but we just bumped pacman 3 into the testing repository where it will live for a few days before moving to current. PLEASE let us know if you find any problems with it by posting a detailed bug report to Flyspray or sending us an email on the pacman-dev mailing list.
The pacman website should be updated in the near future with details on what has changed. That can be found at http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/.

Just a "heads-up" on something we didn't address. When pacman detects and upgrade for itself, it *doesn't* pull in dependencies. You will be better off doing a

pacman -S pacman

when it detects the upgrade. Either that of install the dependencies manually.

[vEX] · 2007-03-26 09:22:42

Nice!, though you really should increase the font-size on that pacman page, it's a real pain to read (specially the changelog) on 1280x1024.

lilsirecho · 2007-03-26 16:09:53

Phrakture:

I suspect that the upgrade to pacman 3.0 might impact those who have modified their pacman with scripts to speed things up.

An examination of this area might be fruitful for many users employing those scripts.

cromo · 2007-03-26 16:24:37

lilsirecho wrote:

Phrakture:
I suspect that the upgrade to pacman 3.0 might impact those who have modified their pacman with scripts to speed things up.
An examination of this area might be fruitful for many users employing those scripts.

pacman2->pacman3 works fine with pacman-cage script. Actually I completely forgot and din't even backup the pacman db before upgrade. If it was to not run smoothly after the upgrade i'd probably be fscked up now

Last edited by cromo (2007-03-26 16:25:03)

toofishes · 2007-03-26 16:40:26

lilsirecho wrote:

Phrakture:
I suspect that the upgrade to pacman 3.0 might impact those who have modified their pacman with scripts to speed things up.
An examination of this area might be fruitful for many users employing those scripts.

Not to sound nasty about these scripts, but they are not really our concern. We have had RC's out for the past two weeks so the authors and/or users of these scripts can make any necessary adjustments and get the word out. I've never found the need for one of these, and pacman3 is still quite fast without them.

phrakture · 2007-03-26 16:43:52

toofishes wrote:

lilsirecho wrote:
Phrakture:
I suspect that the upgrade to pacman 3.0 might impact those who have modified their pacman with scripts to speed things up.
An examination of this area might be fruitful for many users employing those scripts.
Not to sound nasty about these scripts, but they are not really our concern. We have had RC's out for the past two weeks so the authors and/or users of these scripts can make any necessary adjustments and get the word out. I've never found the need for one of these, and pacman3 is still quite fast without them.

I have to agree here. Scripts like pacman-cage are "unsupported". That is, we're not going to take extra steps to ensure they work, but if the users/authors inform us of any problems we could fix easily, it will probably get done. That said, I've never been a fan of pacman-cage.

wain · 2007-03-26 17:13:40

cromo wrote:

pacman2->pacman3 works fine with pacman-cage script. Actually I completely forgot and din't even backup the pacman db before upgrade. If it was to not run smoothly after the upgrade i'd probably be fscked up now

pacman-cage works great for me too with pacman3. There is no reason that it woudn't work

dtw · 2007-03-26 18:30:54

lilsirecho wrote:

An examination of this area might be fruitful for many users employing those scripts.

Yeah, those users should definitely investigate and help the other people having problems with those scripts

Lontronics · 2007-03-26 20:26:36

Just upgraded to pacman 3 and optimized my mirrorlist with rankmirror.

Everything went smooth and pacman 3 is working fine here.

Good job!

wonder · 2007-03-26 21:22:57

i just upgraded to pacman3. and WOW is very very fast.
good job!

mpie · 2007-03-26 21:47:42

I agree on the speed, plus pacman eats with ilovecandy !!!

Jessehk · 2007-03-26 22:08:27

I also upgraded pacman and it's very impressive. I love Arch!

AlexExtreme · 2007-03-27 06:32:54

Hmm. It's rather convenient how no credit at all is being given to Frugalware for the significant changes and fixes we made for pacman 3....

scarney · 2007-03-27 06:48:52

AlexExtreme wrote:

Hmm. It's rather convenient how no credit at all is being given to Frugalware for the significant changes and fixes we made for pacman 3....

thank you for your contributions frugalware! <3

dtw · 2007-03-27 07:54:44

AlexExtreme wrote:

Hmm. It's rather convenient how no credit at all is being given to Frugalware for the significant changes and fixes we made for pacman 3....

Yeah, I'm grateful too. In fact, I get down on my knees ever night and thank Linus for the wonderful world he has given us all.

Cerebral · 2007-03-27 11:26:16

AlexExtreme wrote:

Hmm. It's rather convenient how no credit at all is being given to Frugalware for the significant changes and fixes we made for pacman 3....

No credit at all?

http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcv … cvs-markup

The first place I looked, the AUTHORS file, contains names of devs of Frugalware.

stonecrest · 2007-03-27 15:17:53

Like anyone ever looks at the AUTHOR file to find out who the authors were.....
</joke>

I can't believe you signed up for an account just to post that.

Lontronics · 2007-03-27 15:38:54

I think this should not be the discussion.
My thanks go to everyone involved in pacman 3.

And although I did not even know Frugalware was involved, ofcourse I am thankfull to them also then...

Jan

Last edited by Lontronics (2007-03-27 15:39:12)

AlexExtreme · 2007-03-27 16:30:32

stonecrest wrote:

Like anyone ever looks at the AUTHOR file to find out who the authors were.....
</joke>
I can't believe you signed up for an account just to post that.

I've had an account for ages. And yes, I know we're in the AUTHORS file, just the ChangeLog on pacman's site and everything here has had no reference to Frugalware. I don't mean to flame, btw. Just it is kinda annoying that most Arch users do not even know that we contributed a LOT of pacman3's code, and think phrakture, etc did all the work

catweazle · 2007-03-27 20:38:55

It works nicely. However, the reported downlink rates seems a bit too high. I have a DSL connection with 1Mbit/s downlink rate (i.e., 128kBytes/s). For larger packages (several MB), where the reported averaged downlink rate should be quite reliable, pacman3 reports numbers like 180 kBytes/s. With pacman 2.9.x the numbers seemed to be correct (below, but close to 128 kBytes/s) .

Not a big issue for me. I just thought I should mention it. Thanks for the great work!

yankees26 · 2007-03-27 21:48:39

AlexExtreme wrote:

stonecrest wrote:
Like anyone ever looks at the AUTHOR file to find out who the authors were.....
</joke>
I can't believe you signed up for an account just to post that.
I've had an account for ages. And yes, I know we're in the AUTHORS file, just the ChangeLog on pacman's site and everything here has had no reference to Frugalware. I don't mean to flame, btw. Just it is kinda annoying that most Arch users do not even know that we contributed a LOT of pacman3's code, and think phrakture, etc did all the work

Hi Alex. Now a quote from http://archlinux.org/pacman 's changelog

- Frugalware: added -Qm option to find foreign packages
- Frugalware: added DistCC support to makepkg

So it does mention Frugalware

I really don't get all this complaining...for god sakes does using pacman and not knowing every single author doesn't affect the end user experience which is what we are going for. I basically rewrote a the majority of script and it nowhere does a mention my name in that script's copyright and I'm content. Andrew Fyfe from DIY Linux on the mailing list pumped out multiple makepkg patches to fix some large fakeroot hackyness and I guarantee you, that he would be content with his name on the AUTHORS file and if we wasn't added, he'd probably still be content.

So, Alex, hows Upstart going?

EDIT: I forgot to mention: Yeah for pacman 3 being in testing!!

Last edited by yankees26 (2007-03-27 21:52:42)

phrakture · 2007-03-27 22:08:29

Back on topic ladies, I don't want to have to lock an announcement thread.

yankees26 · 2007-03-28 02:00:51

I'll start it off, since pacman-cage was brought up. I also can report that pacman3 works perfectly fine with a loopback device...AND finally pacman-optimize does too (which is always nice).

@catweazle: If you wouldn't mind, reporting this as a bug on flyspray would be very helpful so we can keep track of this if/when (I won't make any promises cause my network programming skills are zilch) we get around to fixing it.

nightfrost · 2007-03-28 09:25:26

I've been using pacman3 since RC2 and I just wanted to say that it works very nicely. It's definitely been worth waiting for it ;-)

However, it does feel like an x.0.0-release (remarkably bug-free though!) which will have more features added in subsequent releases. And I guess now devs will be open to peoples' various feature requests, as 2.x has been obsolete. (Not saying you guys haven't been open to feature requests before, but due to the x.0.0 release I presume they have been postponed).

Anyway, many thanks! Love your work

Izuil · 2007-03-28 11:28:14

Just a quick one, if I edit my makepkg.conf to build athlon-xp packages instead of i686 when I build them myself why won't pacman accept them?

It gives me:
error: failed to add target 'exaile-svn-2224-1-athlon-xp.pkg.tar.gz' (invalid or corrupted package)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-03-26 08:48:08

pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#2 2007-03-26 09:22:42

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#3 2007-03-26 16:09:53

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#4 2007-03-26 16:24:37

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#5 2007-03-26 16:40:26

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#6 2007-03-26 16:43:52

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#7 2007-03-26 17:13:40

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#8 2007-03-26 18:30:54

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#9 2007-03-26 20:26:36

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#10 2007-03-26 21:22:57

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#11 2007-03-26 21:47:42

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#12 2007-03-26 22:08:27

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#13 2007-03-27 06:32:54

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#14 2007-03-27 06:48:52

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#15 2007-03-27 07:54:44

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#16 2007-03-27 11:26:16

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#17 2007-03-27 15:17:53

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#18 2007-03-27 15:38:54

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#19 2007-03-27 16:30:32

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#20 2007-03-27 20:38:55

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#21 2007-03-27 21:48:39

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#22 2007-03-27 22:08:29

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#23 2007-03-28 02:00:51

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#24 2007-03-28 09:25:26

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#25 2007-03-28 11:28:14

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

Board footer