pacman 3.0.0 in testing

Xilon · 2007-04-17 11:29:31

Personally I think a lot of pacman should be seperated, as with other packages. Pacman could be seperated into Pacman, libalpm, makepkg, rankmirrors, possibly abs (though that could go with makepkg), and maybe some kind of repo-managment package. The latter two could be included in some other package though, it's not big...

Imo libalpm should definitely be seperated since other frontends/"clients" could be made, making pacman non-essential and hence it would be "bloat" to keep it on the system if you don't use it.

equadon · 2007-04-17 12:58:21

Xilon wrote:

Imo libalpm should definitely be seperated since other frontends/"clients" could be made, making pacman non-essential and hence it would be "bloat" to keep it on the system if you don't use it.

I agree. I think this will happen soon. Afterall, this is the first release of Pacman using libalpm.

I don't think Pacman should be split into too many parts. Pacman should remain a simple, fully working package manager client. It's up to the community to develop other clients. makepkg and abs should definitely be included in the Pacman package.

rankmirrors is a nice utility, but since it depends on python it's not suitable to include in the Pacman package. Sure the error it throws out is clear but it's not a good solution. A note telling users to install rankmirrors instead after the installation would be better.

ekerazha · 2007-04-17 18:01:24

Husio wrote:

(something small like sqlite3). That would make him quick.
Sqlite database is simple file, which actually is quite small (my aur script database, 6 columns, ~6tys PKGBUILDs is only ~1Mb) and seaching is damn quick.

Also Berkeley DB could be a solution

dolby · 2007-04-17 18:08:08

tried to upgrade a pkg earlier with -U and got an error that pacman doesnt remove conflicting pkgs on its own and i had to do it manually with -Rd.
if i am not mistaking pacman 2.X.Y could do that. why cant pacman 3.X.Y ?

toofishes · 2007-04-18 01:21:14

dolby wrote:

tried to upgrade a pkg earlier with -U and got an error that pacman doesnt remove conflicting pkgs on its own and i had to do it manually with -Rd.
if i am not mistaking pacman 2.X.Y could do that. why cant pacman 3.X.Y ?

Why? Because pacman 3 is completely different than pacman 2. In addition, I doubt this ever worked correctly with pacman 2, and our testing suite seems to indicate the same. We decided to disable the broken parts instead of let them cause problems down the road. It will eventually be implemented correctly.

For all posters in this thread- please realize that all Arch developers have work outside of Arch, and development may not progress as fast as you want it to. Us pacman developers try to get things done as quick as our time allows. A lot of these issues, such as database backends, have been discussed in the past on the mailing list, but very few people ever want to sit down and code. We are currently looking at making even more changes to pacman so this kind of change could be possible in the future, but we can only do so much.

And please don't take the above as harsh- I'm just trying to lay out how this whole process of development works.

raymano · 2007-04-18 01:49:46

toofishes. Dude. It does sound very harsh and I think you need to take a chill pill. The poor guy is just asking a question. I thought this opensource thing is a volunteer effort. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it, QUIT!

Last edited by raymano (2007-04-18 01:51:43)

barebones · 2007-04-18 01:58:17

Please don't quit toofishes, pacman is awesome

And I agree that at this point if anyone is that determined to have a db backend, they should start throwing out some sample code. Not only does it show some actual participation, but having some working code gets other people excited to work on things too. Remember, pacman 3 is still in testing, theres still plenty of stuff to do before fixing things that aren't broken.

raymano · 2007-04-18 02:06:31

barebones wrote:

Please don't quit toofishes, pacman is awesome

toofishes didn't create pacman. Judd did.

Is the common response to a question in the Arch forums, "If you don't like it write it yourself"?

Last edited by raymano (2007-04-18 02:10:56)

phrakture · 2007-04-18 02:12:21

raymano wrote:

barebones wrote:
Please don't quit toofishes, pacman is awesome
toofishes didn't create pacman. Judd did.

toofishes and myself are the only arch developers actively working on pacman. Judd is busy with other things.

raymano wrote:

Is the common response to a question in the Arch forums, "If you don't like it write it yourself"?

Actually, yes.

toofishes · 2007-04-18 02:23:29

raymano wrote:

barebones wrote:
Please don't quit toofishes, pacman is awesome
toofishes didn't create pacman. Judd did.
Is the common response to a question in the Arch forums, "If you don't like it write it yourself"?

Wow, someone took my comments out of context. Maybe you should follow the pacman-dev ML before you make such blanket statements.

Quit? I'm not even going to say anything to that.

raymano · 2007-04-18 03:44:38

phrakture wrote:

raymano wrote:
Is the common response to a question in the Arch forums, "If you don't like it write it yourself"?
Actually, yes.

Could you please then put this on the archlinux main page so that users know what to expect?

phrakture · 2007-04-18 04:25:32

raymano wrote:

phrakture wrote:
raymano wrote:
Is the common response to a question in the Arch forums, "If you don't like it write it yourself"?
Actually, yes.
Could you please then put this on the archlinux main page so that users know what to expect?

Can you send me a patch?

raymano · 2007-04-18 05:27:08

phrakture wrote:

raymano wrote:
phrakture wrote:
Actually, yes.
Could you please then put this on the archlinux main page so that users know what to expect?
Can you send me a patch?

In the root of the web site just replace media/title.png with this:

gradgrind · 2007-04-18 15:06:33

Actually, if one takes a step back and ignores the various sentiments, misunderstandings and leg-pulling in the above comments, it sounds not at all bad (to me at any rate) - "archlinux: if you don't llike it, write it yourself". With Arch it would often be possible for normal mortals to change this or that to be more to their liking. I wouldn't say that was the case for your average linux distribution.

stonecrest · 2007-04-18 15:16:15

sl · 2007-04-18 15:57:10

raymano wrote:

toofishes. Dude. It does sound very harsh and I think you need to take a chill pill. The poor guy is just asking a question. I thought this opensource thing is a volunteer effort. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it, QUIT!

if u don't like it, quit ?
correct me if i read it incorrectly ... but who's having an issue here? it sure does not look like toofishes, does it?

yes his comments seemed harsh, however, i personally do not see any other way of writing it, do you ?

i guess i'll jsut stop rantign now,
i thought of other things to say .. but there no point re-inventing the wheel now, is there ?

You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of natural resources — kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll.

lol

cactus · 2007-04-18 16:01:07

stonecrest wrote:

http://www.barbarawood.com/guestbook/im … s/type.gif

His fingers!
They move SO FAST!

*stares transfixed*

...This has gone very off topic. Lockage.
I recommend people take a step back, and realize that there are real people on the other end of the internets. Chill people. ffs.

Arch Linux

#76 2007-04-17 11:29:31

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#77 2007-04-17 12:58:21

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#78 2007-04-17 18:01:24

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#79 2007-04-17 18:08:08

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#80 2007-04-18 01:21:14

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#81 2007-04-18 01:49:46

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#82 2007-04-18 01:58:17

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#83 2007-04-18 02:06:31

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#84 2007-04-18 02:12:21

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#85 2007-04-18 02:23:29

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#86 2007-04-18 03:44:38

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#87 2007-04-18 04:25:32

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#88 2007-04-18 05:27:08

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#89 2007-04-18 15:06:33

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#90 2007-04-18 15:16:15

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#91 2007-04-18 15:57:10

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

#92 2007-04-18 16:01:07

Re: pacman 3.0.0 in testing

Board footer