pacman lagging behind?

aardwolf · 2008-06-21 10:58:40

Hi,

It's as if pacman lags behind these days. For example, firefox 3 and wine 1.0 were released tuesday. However, pacman still gives this output:

[root]# pacman -Sy firefox
:: Synchronizing package databases...
core 32.1K 121.2K/s 00:00:00 [#####################] 100%
extra 403.5K 182.1K/s 00:00:02 [#####################] 100%
community 346.3K 198.7K/s 00:00:02 [#####################] 100%
warning: firefox-2.0.0.14-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets: firefox-2.0.0.14-1

Total Download Size: 0.00 MB
Total Installed Size: 26.72 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] n
[root]# pacman -Sy wine
:: Synchronizing package databases...
core is up to date
extra is up to date
community is up to date
warning: wine-0.9.61-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets: wine-0.9.61-1

Total Download Size: 0.00 MB
Total Installed Size: 67.04 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] n

This is a bit disappointing.

I heard there's this AUR, but I've never used it because I thought it would be more clean to only install and deinstall stuff that are officially in pacman.

But it appears it's so slow these days to get new software for Archlinux using pacman.

Is pacman still worth it?

What should I do to get things faster but still have everything regulated by something like pacman to avoid having my system turn into a terrible mess?

lucke · 2008-06-21 11:05:17

Read about ABS, that's what it's there for.

aardwolf · 2008-06-21 11:35:19

Pffff, I thought an advantage of archlinux was that binary packages are available, I'm not a fan of having to build everything yourself. I thought that's what gentoo was for.

I like archlinux for being modular and having it easy to install only those binary packages you need, and that these were "cutting edge".

What's going on with pacman now though? Do Archlinux users like building all their software themselves now, which is why the binary packages aren't maintained as fast as in the past anymore? Or is it still the same as in the past and is it only an impression that waiting more than 4 days for firefox 3 is a longer wait than it used to be years ago when new software came out in pacman? I can imagine it must be some work to release this stuff for pacman, but it's really as if in the past this used to go faster.

How's this all going to go for KDE 4.1? I'm really looking forward to it and hoping to have it asap after it's released :s

Last edited by aardwolf (2008-06-21 11:38:57)

lucke · 2008-06-21 11:48:39

It's wrong to expect all packages to be the latest and greatest. Devs have their lives too, you know.

If I'm not mistaken, JGC was trying to build firefox3 against xulrunner, like it is in some other distros, but it failed for some unknown reason. Probably that's the holdup.

Devs have already set up a testing repo in preparation for KDE 4.1.

Last edited by lucke (2008-06-21 11:49:53)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-21 12:01:45

@aardwolf: one thing you can do to speed things up is go and start maintaining some packages - don't forget all devs are working here for free in their spare time. Bitching about "pacman lagging behind" is unrealistic and, as far as I am concerned, arrogant. You have no right to demand anything here - you haven't paid for Arch, you don't help developing it. Buy a commercial distro and then you can nag. Or help developing Arch. Or accept the way it is. Or find a better distro.

BTW. On a more positive note: ABS and AUR are here so you can have up-to-date packages where the devs are not making it (or get packages which aren't available otherwise). Read the wiki and you'll see that the installed packages are handled by pacman as well so there's no "contamination". And no: compiling one package a month won't kill you and won't make Gentoo out of your Arch.

aardwolf · 2008-06-21 12:35:39

Hi,

I wasn't intending to be arrogant, though I suppose asking about this can be seen as it. It's just that it seemed to be faster in the past.

I really appreciate what the devs are doing, it's a whole achievement to maintain so much different software for a distro and be able to host it on so many servers.

I'm a happy and thankful Archlinux user, no worries

Sorry if it sounded wrong, and thanks for setting light on this.

abhidg · 2008-06-21 13:24:58

Your terminology is incorrect. When the binary package for a new application
does not turn up in Arch quickly (for whatever reason), it is certainly not pacman's fault.
pacman is *just* the package manager for the system. There are no packages 'in' pacman,
what you are referring to are the repositories. pacman does not show firefox 3 because
firefox 3 is not in the package databases on the mirrors (which is because it has not been
packaged yet). The package repositories are independent of pacman.

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-21 13:35:36

No problem If you want firefox3 right now, do this:

yaourt -S firefox3-bin

Easy enough. When firefox3 hits the normal repo it'll be enough to run:

pacman -R firefox3-bin
pacman -S firefox

to get back to "normal" firefox 3.

If you don't have yaourt yet, go here for instructions:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Yaourt

Good luck.

Edit: If yaourt fails to install firefox3 then try and remove the old firefox first (pacman -R firefox). I am not sure but I think I had to do so.

Last edited by JeremyTheWicked (2008-06-21 13:40:57)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-21 10:58:40

pacman lagging behind?

#2 2008-06-21 11:05:17

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#3 2008-06-21 11:35:19

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#4 2008-06-21 11:48:39

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#5 2008-06-21 12:01:45

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#6 2008-06-21 12:35:39

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#7 2008-06-21 13:24:58

Re: pacman lagging behind?

#8 2008-06-21 13:35:36

Re: pacman lagging behind?

Board footer