Pacman 4

archman-cro · 2012-01-19 16:29:40

FreeTheBee wrote:

So, now Arch is finally safe to use

Wait for the real deal. ^^

karol · 2012-01-19 21:08:12

ngoonee wrote:

Only (by my count) 5+ threads so far, the upgrade went well

Status?

litemotiv · 2012-01-19 21:30:20

Allan wrote:

FreeTheBee wrote:
So, now Arch is finally safe to use
Yes....

Except for the usual breakage ofcourse.

twouters · 2012-01-21 09:27:31

jasonwryan wrote:

I just wanted to thank the developers for all of the work (and all of the people that run [Testing] for doing just that) to get pacman 4 into core.
As most of us have come to expect, the upgrade went seamlessly. The road to package signing has been a rather eventful one, and the community is indebted to you for the work you have put it to get us here.
Cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

I don't want to ruin the general mood of this topic, but how can you call this upgrade seamlessly? The whole hassle with adding the master and developer keys to the local keyring could've been avoided by releasing a pacman-keyring package.
I really hope that it'll be created soon as it should've been there as soon as pacman 4 hitted core - or why not, before it did.
Still, as far as I dislike the Arch Linux release strategy for certain core components, I appreciate the work of the devs very much.

jasonwryan · 2012-01-21 18:35:54

twouters wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
I just wanted to thank the developers for all of the work (and all of the people that run [Testing] for doing just that) to get pacman 4 into core.
As most of us have come to expect, the upgrade went seamlessly. The road to package signing has been a rather eventful one, and the community is indebted to you for the work you have put it to get us here.
Cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
I don't want to ruin the general mood of this topic, but how can you call this upgrade seamlessly?

Seamlessly as in I read the documentation and performed the upgrade and, after a couple of minutes setting up the keys (I chose to use SigLevel = Optional / DatabaseRequired setting) it all worked perfectly. I don't see it as a hassle at all: it is a very small amount of manual intervention for quite a significant change in the core functionality of the distro.

For a rolling release, that is quite a big deal and the people who made it happen should be well pleased with what they have achieved for the rest of us...

twouters · 2012-01-21 20:48:19

jasonwryan wrote:

Seamlessly as in I read the documentation and performed the upgrade and, after a couple of minutes setting up the keys (I chose to use SigLevel = Optional / DatabaseRequired setting) it all worked perfectly. I don't see it as a hassle at all: it is a very small amount of manual intervention for quite a significant change in the core functionality of the distro.
For a rolling release, that is quite a big deal and the people who made it happen should be well pleased with what they have achieved for the rest of us...

Agreed. I didn't mean to sound ungrateful.

Having a pacman-keyring package would mean less maintenance of the local keyring for me - which probably makes me a lazy user.

hokasch · 2012-01-21 21:19:29

Package signing is still optional and not enabled by default, from Allans blog post linked in the pacman 4 announcement:

In the future we might provide a pacman-keyring package that streamlines this process a bit, or at least will save the individual downloading of each packager’s key.

I had no problems with the update. A big thank you for all the work to everyone involved!

Runiq · 2012-01-21 21:52:49

Thanks from me too, everything Just Works(tm) after verifying the master keys and merging .conf files. Kudos to everyone involved!

On a sidenote, what's been holding the pacman-keyring package back? Wasn't it released with pacman 4 in order to get users to verify the master keys manually?

skottish · 2012-01-22 02:40:10

Package signing? That's a great idea. I wonder why no one ever brought that up in the forums?

SanskritFritz · 2012-01-22 08:40:04

skottish wrote:

Package signing? That's a great idea. I wonder why no one ever brought that up in the forums?

you're mean...

mariusmeyer · 2012-01-22 10:38:15

It amazes me how, adding disk space (first time I've enabled it) AND package sig checking, you guys still manage to make pacman go faster than before.

Great job!

bergersau · 2012-01-27 00:19:00

First, Pacman 4 is working really well for me.

I saw on Allan's blog on 17th Dec 2011 that:

Allan wrote:

As of today, 100% of the packages in the [core] repo and approximately 71% of [extra] and 45% of [community] are signed.

I'm wondering in general terms how long this signing process is expected to take. Yes, I do understand that this is not the responsibility of the Pacman maintainers and I'm not trying to hurry up or pressure anyone.

Is there any way to keep track of the status of package signing so that we can 'flip the switch' from 'optional' to 'required' when that becomes sensible?

Earnestly · 2012-01-27 01:27:54

Fri Jan 27 01:28:03 GMT 2012

Repository	Packages	Percentage
core:   	192 / 192	[100%]
community:   	1206 / 2326	[52%]
extra:   	2057 / 2794	[74%]
multilib:   	105 / 146	[72%]

Using Allen's script (slightly modified) and wrapping it up in a bashrc function.

#!/bin/bash
#
# query a repo by name to see number of packages signed
#

IFS=$'\n' read -rd '' -a pkgs < <(pacman -Sql "$1")

(( ${#pkgs[*]} )) || exit

expac -S '%g' "${pkgs[@]/#/$1/}" |
  awk '
BEGIN { yes = no = 0 }

{ $1 == "(null)" ? no++ : yes++ }

END {
  printf "%s / %s\t[%.f%%]\n", yes, (yes + no), (yes / (yes + no) * 100)
}'

# ~/.bashrc
function repo-chk() { echo -e "\e[1;30m\e[4mRepository\tPackages\tPercentage\e[0m"; for repo in core community extra multilib; do echo -e "\e[1;32m$repo:\e[0m   \t$(. ~/scripts/checkpkgsigned $repo)"; done; }

Last edited by Earnestly (2012-01-27 01:41:22)

bergersau · 2012-01-27 02:16:16

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Allan · 2012-01-27 04:13:21

We are doing a missive rebuild for libpng and libtiff updates so the numbers will take a jump soon. Then we will consider rebuilding the rest of the packages.

wntyygtwxf · 2012-02-26 06:22:01

thanks!

nickmarkham397 · 2012-02-28 03:54:01

i am a noob to arch even though i have used it for the past year in a virtual box running under a windows 7 host system. it was great untill i had to upgrade to the new pacman. after a few hours of hell and reserch i got it to work and downloaded the 1.35gig of updates i needed. after this it says my root partition is full and when i rebooted my vbox it brought me to an xdm login instead of a kdm login. i got mad and reinstalled after that i reinstalled archlinux-2010.05-core-dual and tried to bring it up to date. after i instaled the new packman and gave it a mirror to work with i downloaded 500mb worth of files like linux3.2 and stuff like that. when it gets to instaling this stuff it tells me there are files that already exist in the filesystem. "to be expected" when i remove them and try to instal again it says my disk is full on a brand new instal of an older iso. pleas help me

sorry if this didn't flow verry well. it is late here in the us and i am a little ticked off because i know i got this to work 5 times before.

ngoonee · 2012-02-28 05:05:57

nickmarkham397 wrote:

i am a noob to arch even though i have used it for the past year in a virtual box running under a windows 7 host system. it was great untill i had to upgrade to the new pacman. after a few hours of hell and reserch i got it to work and downloaded the 1.35gig of updates i needed. after this it says my root partition is full and when i rebooted my vbox it brought me to an xdm login instead of a kdm login. i got mad and reinstalled after that i reinstalled archlinux-2010.05-core-dual and tried to bring it up to date. after i instaled the new packman and gave it a mirror to work with i downloaded 500mb worth of files like linux3.2 and stuff like that. when it gets to instaling this stuff it tells me there are files that already exist in the filesystem. "to be expected" when i remove them and try to instal again it says my disk is full on a brand new instal of an older iso. pleas help me
sorry if this didn't flow verry well. it is late here in the us and i am a little ticked off because i know i got this to work 5 times before.

You're not going to get any help with a post like that, sorry to say. In fact, if you haven't been keeping your Arch install up-to-date then you should either be familiar enough with it to deal with the brokenness or consider not using Arch (VM or not). Also, don't use that iso, there's newer (experimental) iso files which would be easier to update from.

San2ban · 2012-02-29 15:37:58

Mhkali should be informed of package signining, wherever he is. ( Was hosting a mirror for Archlinux, made some loose comments wrt package signing, got banned)

bergersau · 2012-03-22 08:47:10

Great job on the package signing front guys!

Using Kaustics method above.

$ repo-chk 
Repository	Packages	Percentage
core:   	191 / 191	[100%]
community:   	2384 / 2384	[100%]
extra:   	2733 / 2733	[100%]
multilib:   	139 / 139	[100%]

Arch Linux

#26 2012-01-19 16:29:40

Re: Pacman 4

#27 2012-01-19 21:08:12

Re: Pacman 4

#28 2012-01-19 21:30:20

Re: Pacman 4

#29 2012-01-21 09:27:31

Re: Pacman 4

#30 2012-01-21 18:35:54

Re: Pacman 4

#31 2012-01-21 20:48:19

Re: Pacman 4

#32 2012-01-21 21:19:29

Re: Pacman 4

#33 2012-01-21 21:52:49

Re: Pacman 4

#34 2012-01-22 02:40:10

Re: Pacman 4

#35 2012-01-22 08:40:04

Re: Pacman 4

#36 2012-01-22 10:38:15

Re: Pacman 4

#37 2012-01-27 00:19:00

Re: Pacman 4

#38 2012-01-27 01:27:54

Re: Pacman 4

#39 2012-01-27 02:16:16

Re: Pacman 4

#40 2012-01-27 04:13:21

Re: Pacman 4

#41 2012-02-26 06:22:01

Re: Pacman 4

#42 2012-02-28 03:54:01

Re: Pacman 4

#43 2012-02-28 05:05:57

Re: Pacman 4

#44 2012-02-29 15:37:58

Re: Pacman 4

#45 2012-03-22 08:47:10

Re: Pacman 4

Board footer