An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

B-Con · 2008-07-22 19:14:25

I was reading an Arch review and saw the following quote:

The best thing about Pacman is that it installs only what I ask it to. For example, it allows me the freedom to install just the KSnapshot program instead of the complete KDE graphics package. So I not only end up saving disk space, but also get bloat-free, ligtening-fast performance.

Why does the author think that this is possible? pacman -Ss turns up nothing for ksnapshot. I only use KolourPaint from the KDEGraphics package but - like many others on the forum have discovered - have to install the entire package since Arch doesn't divide such packages into individual programs (KISS principle).

I was about to post a comment to this article correcting this, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Does anyone know what he's talking about? I find it odd that he could be mistaken about installing a package that does not exist, what did he think he installed?

schivmeister · 2008-07-22 19:19:21

1) For example

2) kdemod/kdemod-kdegraphics-ksnapshot

3) But you are correct, that guy's talking about Pacman itself and the audience would assume a vanilla install without third-party add-ons like kdemod, so it's probably a bad example but not that bad either.

B-Con · 2008-07-22 19:22:52

Ah, KDEMod. I've never used it, so I didn't know it has an addon set of packages. Thanks.

tomk · 2008-07-22 21:34:04

The paragraph preceding your quote mentions KDEMod. Admittedly, he doesn't make it absolutely clear, but I think readers can probably work it out.

miggy · 2008-07-22 22:37:41

Pacman is great and all but I think this quality that's in question (if it's even true) is more of a feature of the repository than a feature of pacman. Additionally (me ranting) I think it must be cool to say pacman is awesome b/c i've seen it written a lot but rarely backed up with something that would differentiate it from any other package manager.

Edit: don't want anyone to get the wrong impression...I'm enthralled with pacman just not people who are telling me it's awesome cuz they installed xfce with it

Last edited by miggy (2008-07-22 22:39:24)

Asgaroth · 2008-07-22 22:50:01

miggy wrote:

Pacman is great and all but I think this quality that's in question (if it's even true) is more of a feature of the repository than a feature of pacman. Additionally (me ranting) I think it must be cool to say pacman is awesome b/c i've seen it written a lot but rarely backed up with something that would differentiate it from any other package manager.
Edit: don't want anyone to get the wrong impression...I'm enthralled with pacman just not people who are telling me it's awesome cuz they installed xfce with it

Here's my reasoning for why pacman is awesome:
For me the best point about pacman is, that it Just Works(tm), which was not the case with most of the other package managers I used. Even big updates never broke anything for me and the only thing I had dependency issues with were some aur packages, all of which could be easily resolved. Besides that, the interface and configuration is clearer than others(apt for example) and the creation and managing of packages is clearly separated between pacman and makepkg. The simplicity of creating own packages, though not really related to pacman, is another great point about the Arch package management.
Therefore, pacman is the best package manager that I know of(But I don't have tried many different ones either, because I found ArchLinux quite early in my Linux journey, which ended my urge to try out other distros).

B-Con · 2008-07-23 00:04:41

tomk wrote:

The paragraph preceding your quote mentions KDEMod. Admittedly, he doesn't make it absolutely clear, but I think readers can probably work it out.

True, but I wouldn't have assumed that with a DE came a separate repository. He also makes reference to the fact (by using KSnapShot as an example) that packages tend to be individually distributed, with is actually the opposite of the truth. I don't know how KDEMod works, but I wonder if he even knows that KDEMod comes with its own repository. If not, he may have been basing that point off of non-standard information.

Not that I have anything against pacman, this issue is completely unrelated to pacman. Pacman just installs whatever its told to.

Misfit138 · 2008-07-23 00:07:56

Why I love pacman:
1. Reliable, predictable behavior: I haven't been affected by any pacman bugs in 2 years of use.
2. Reasonable and readable output: using other package managers for me is like trying to read an encyclopedic article flying up the screen. Tons of useless output for the smallest and simplest operation. Pacman's output is short, concise, and relevant.
3. Fastest by a longshot: After the first sync operation, which takes about 10-15 seconds on average for me, (with a year's worth of cache in /var), nothing can touch pacman's speed. Unzipping and installing happens so fluidly when compared to other package managers.
4. Versatility: -R, -Rs, -Rsc, -Rscn...et cetera!
5. ILoveCandy
6. Cool name. Yes this is relevant to me. In a world packed with the likes of 'udev', 'urpmi', 'yum', 'feh', and any other GNU/Linux naming blunders I can think of, 'pacman' always makes me smile.
7. Tupac, Yaourt, and all the other community-contributed wrappers and tools

kensai · 2008-07-23 00:21:09

Misfit138 wrote:

Why I love pacman:
1. Reliable, predictable behavior: I haven't been affected by any pacman bugs in 2 years of use.
2. Reasonable and readable output: using other package managers for me is like trying to read an encyclopedic article flying up the screen. Tons of useless output for the smallest and simplest operation. Pacman's output is short, concise, and relevant.
3. Fastest by a longshot: After the first sync operation, which takes about 10-15 seconds on average for me, (with a year's worth of cache in /var), nothing can touch pacman's speed. Unzipping and installing happens so fluidly when compared to other package managers.
4. Versatility: -R, -Rs, -Rsc, -Rscn...et cetera!
5. ILoveCandy
6. Cool name. Yes this is relevant to me. In a world packed with the likes of 'udev', 'urpmi', 'yum', 'feh', and any other GNU/Linux naming blunders I can think of, 'pacman' always makes me smile.
7. Tupac, Yaourt, and all the other community-contributed wrappers and tools

8. Lifting cars.

B-Con · 2008-07-23 01:44:42

9. Every day, for the past 7 months, it has never failed to prepare me warm waffles for breakfast.

miggy · 2008-07-23 01:48:35

See? These are reasons to like pacman!

B-Con · 2008-07-23 02:03:59

miggy wrote:

See? These are reasons to like pacman!

Of course there are.

Just to be clear, I was only bringing my original point up for the sake of clarity. The author cites nimble packages as a plus for pacman. I don't think he's correct but I'm in no way criticizing pacman. I think its the best package manager I've ever used. I simply don't think his assessment of packaging standards was accurate. (Which leads to the fact that this isn't even a pacman issue, its a packaging issue.) So definitely no less love for pacman.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-07-22 19:14:25

An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#2 2008-07-22 19:19:21

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#3 2008-07-22 19:22:52

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#4 2008-07-22 21:34:04

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#5 2008-07-22 22:37:41

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#6 2008-07-22 22:50:01

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#7 2008-07-23 00:04:41

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#8 2008-07-23 00:07:56

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#9 2008-07-23 00:21:09

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#10 2008-07-23 01:44:42

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#11 2008-07-23 01:48:35

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

#12 2008-07-23 02:03:59

Re: An Arch Review: Installing knsapshot

Board footer