Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

Gullible Jones · 2006-06-26 16:13:08

How does Frugalware manage to have such a newer version of pacman than we have? Are they using the development branch or something? :?

kensai · 2006-06-26 16:36:08

Frugalware has been developing pacman in a more heavy way than Arch Linux their pacman is more advanced and different than the Arch Linux one. The lead dev got frustrated by pacman 3 development being so slow that he decided to take on the development himself with his developers and have managed to get pacman to that version.

phrakture · 2006-06-26 16:42:59

Also, take a peek at the Changelog. It jumps from 2.9.99 to 3.2.9

Gullible Jones · 2006-06-26 16:52:21

Ouch. I'm guessing (judging in part from its performance) that their version of "pacman 3" does not use a database?

phrakture · 2006-06-26 17:09:17

Gullible Jones wrote:

Ouch. I'm guessing (judging in part from its performance) that their version of "pacman 3" does not use a database?

What do you mean by that? It doesn't use anything like mysql, but it still needs a data store.

hypermegachi · 2006-06-26 17:26:53

phrakture wrote:

Also, take a peek at the Changelog. It jumps from 2.9.99 to 3.2.9

that's a pretty big "version bump"
nonetheless, their pacman has regex search and installing software has a progress bar as well. so i'm guessing that these advanced features warranted the bump. it'd be nice if there was more joint development, but it doesn't look that that will happen.

Mr Green · 2006-06-26 17:37:47

who mentioned Frugalware?

Its not the same as Arch

Arch is better

Gullible Jones · 2006-06-26 18:07:57

phrakture wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:
Ouch. I'm guessing (judging in part from its performance) that their version of "pacman 3" does not use a database?
What do you mean by that? It doesn't use anything like mysql, but it still needs a data store.

Sorry, that was vague... I meant a database that did not use flat files (which is what makes pacman so slow with XFS).

brain0 · 2006-06-26 18:31:09

So they forked it, they should have renamed it then.

kakabaratruskia · 2006-06-26 20:19:36

by the way, what the hell happened to pacman development??

cactus · 2006-06-26 20:41:41

brain0 wrote:

So they forked it, they should have renamed it then.

I agree. They should have renamed it if they forked it.

kensai · 2006-06-26 20:53:18

brain0 wrote:

So they forked it, they should have renamed it then.

Well it still is pacman but at a version 3 is not fork is the same pacman Arch Linux uses. All the patches can be downloaded and everything is kept open.

cactus · 2006-06-26 20:59:41

kensai wrote:

Well it still is pacman but at a version 3 is not fork is the same pacman Arch Linux uses.

It is not the same version that archlinux uses. Arch pacman is not at version 3. http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/

They are obviously, based on previous comments/information, doing their own development on it.

That is what we in the industry call...a fork.

All the patches can be downloaded and everything is kept open.

It damn well better be, since pacman itself was released as GPL software.

I hold nothing against them. Arch pacman has proceeded at quite a glacial pace of late.
Still, they *should* have really changed the name of it, if they are indeed doing their own development of it and releasing their own versions of it.

Not that I really care that much though...

phrakture · 2006-06-26 21:07:13

cactus wrote:

That is what we in the industry call...a fork.

I agree. The should rename it, as it's being developed in parallel, with code sharing. klapmuetz might suggest pacman-ng.

cactus wrote:

I hold nothing against them. Arch pacman has proceeded at quite a glacial pace of late.

Yes, there's various reasons. I will probably pick up development on this in a week or so.

Mr Green · 2006-06-27 06:43:57

Chill out guys pacman works thats all that matters .... 8)

KISS the Arch way .....

ScriptDevil · 2006-06-27 06:44:05

i dont care about version numbers. I am gonna stick to Arch's pacman. And cant anyone drop in a suggestion to the developers of frugalware asking them to rename it?? Arch is stable enough for me with its own pacman!

Mr Green · 2006-06-27 06:45:11

frugalman :shock:

Cam · 2006-06-27 09:52:42

For those who read the pacman ML, vmiklos (Frugal dev) has been continually submitting his patches and not too long ago Judd commented that he hoped in the not too distant future the two versions would be back in parallel. I took this to mean he would be having a serious look at some of the Frugal patches to be included in pacman3 final.

Besides, the GPL says it's not a problem to modify code and redistribute so there is no issue here. If pacman was a TM then yes and pacman is a TM (I think) but not to Judd Vinet.

iBertus · 2006-06-27 14:50:25

I don't really know what 'features' frugle has added to pacman, but what could pacman possibly need? Well, perhaps it could use a speed boost on slow filesystems, but what else? It seems to work very well already.

phrakture · 2006-06-27 15:54:53

iBertus wrote:

I don't really know what 'features' frugle has added to pacman, but what could pacman possibly need? Well, perhaps it could use a speed boost on slow filesystems, but what else? It seems to work very well already.

I can name quite a few. I won't go into details here, but given the time there's a few rather important (IMO) changes I'd like to add.

_Gandalf_ · 2006-06-27 16:19:41

iBertus wrote:

I don't really know what 'features' frugle has added to pacman, but what could pacman possibly need? Well, perhaps it could use a speed boost on slow filesystems, but what else? It seems to work very well already.

There's a lot, most important:
-Gettext translation, now pacman support other languages (french, german etc...)

But why don't you check their pacman??

darcs get --partial http://darcs.frugalware.org/repos/pacman

P.S: pacman 3 is way better than pacman 2 (from Arch) and pacman 3 from frugalware is way better than pacman 3 from Arch...

kensai · 2006-06-27 17:28:38

pacman on arch needs more love.

kakabaratruskia · 2006-06-28 05:43:11

_Gandalf_ wrote:

P.S: pacman 3 is way better than pacman 2 (from Arch) and pacman 3 from frugalware is way better than pacman 3 from Arch...

Could you please explain??, I'm interested

iphitus · 2006-06-28 08:29:41

_Gandalf_ wrote:

iBertus wrote:
I don't really know what 'features' frugle has added to pacman, but what could pacman possibly need? Well, perhaps it could use a speed boost on slow filesystems, but what else? It seems to work very well already.
There's a lot, most important:
-Gettext translation, now pacman support other languages (french, german etc...)
But why don't you check their pacman??
darcs get --partial http://darcs.frugalware.org/repos/pacman
P.S: pacman 3 is way better than pacman 2 (from Arch) and pacman 3 from frugalware is way better than pacman 3 from Arch...

Guys, the frugal devs havn't added 'all' of the new things in that pacman 3. It's a split from Arch's pacman3, which has been available in CVS for months. Many of those features would have been implemented there first. Give credit where it's due.

James

kensai · 2006-06-28 12:09:39

Truth it is, Frugalware just stabilized pacman 3 they did a great job but still part of that job was done already.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-06-26 16:13:08

Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#2 2006-06-26 16:36:08

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#3 2006-06-26 16:42:59

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#4 2006-06-26 16:52:21

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#5 2006-06-26 17:09:17

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#6 2006-06-26 17:26:53

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#7 2006-06-26 17:37:47

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#8 2006-06-26 18:07:57

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#9 2006-06-26 18:31:09

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#10 2006-06-26 20:19:36

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#11 2006-06-26 20:41:41

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#12 2006-06-26 20:53:18

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#13 2006-06-26 20:59:41

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#14 2006-06-26 21:07:13

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#15 2006-06-27 06:43:57

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#16 2006-06-27 06:44:05

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#17 2006-06-27 06:45:11

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#18 2006-06-27 09:52:42

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#19 2006-06-27 14:50:25

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#20 2006-06-27 15:54:53

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#21 2006-06-27 16:19:41

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#22 2006-06-27 17:28:38

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#23 2006-06-28 05:43:11

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#24 2006-06-28 08:29:41

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#25 2006-06-28 12:09:39

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

Board footer