Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

toofishes · 2008-01-11 04:23:05

raul_nds wrote:

+1 for the single mirrorlist.
Single mirrorlist + rankmirrors = perfect combo.
Just one thing (for the users, not the devs):
maybe i'm missing something, but i have for example
[testing]
include /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

[extra]
include /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
and so on....
So, what's the point of having to type the mirror for them all (ok, super lazy argument here). Is this a "feature", so the user can still supply a custom set of mirrors? Or am i doing this wrong?
PS: /me praises the devs

So you can do something like this (btw, probably want the equals sign):

[custompkgs]
Server = file://var/packages/

[testing]
Server = http://myupdatedtestingmirror.org/$repo/os/i686
Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

[extra]
Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

raul_nds · 2008-01-11 04:25:54

That was exactly what I was thinking of, toofishes So what would be the advantage? Would it resort to the mirror files if the Server was down?

Thanks for the replies

hussam · 2008-01-11 05:24:29

Anyone can confirm that pacman 3.1.0 breaks namcap?

Allan · 2008-01-11 05:31:13

The removal of .FILELIST from packages did break namcap. I saw a patch on the pacman-dev list so I assume it will be fixed soon

Last edited by Allan (2008-01-11 05:32:04)

shining · 2008-01-11 07:09:01

Allan wrote:

The removal of .FILELIST from packages did break namcap. I saw a patch on the pacman-dev list so I assume it will be fixed soon

It looks like Jason applied the patch to namcap git, so it's all good. We just need a new namcap release now

shining · 2008-01-11 07:10:30

raul_nds wrote:

That was exactly what I was thinking of, toofishes So what would be the advantage? Would it resort to the mirror files if the Server was down?
Thanks for the replies

As toofishes showed, the main advantage is flexibility (and also the simplicity of the code).

shining · 2008-01-11 07:19:58

tlaloc wrote:

Is there any way to get install messages translated? I mean the stuff 3.1.0 spits out at installation - would seem logical that people would like to have these important messages in local language, right?

There is no way currently. And it looks like it might be more complicated to have all these little .install files gettext'ed, but I'm not sure.
Is it currently possible to install and use arch without knowing english anyway? That's not an argument, I'm just curious, I never really paid attention to that.

shining · 2008-01-11 07:27:52

Mikko777 wrote:

So is the pacman api whatnot now complete and if it is does it mean we could get some GUIs now?

I think what I said there still applies:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 96#p300796

shining · 2008-01-11 07:38:47

cr7 wrote:

What's about the binary differencies for the upgrades?

xdelta support was added to pacman, courtesy of Nathan Jones.
It works really nice, the pacman-git repo used for testing pacman had delta support, and it was great.

However, the deltas can currently only be generated at package creation time (makepkg).
The next step would be to also make the generation possible when the package is added to the repo.
For example, adding it to the repo-add tool.

cr7 · 2008-01-11 11:37:45

However, the deltas can currently only be generated at package creation time (makepkg).
The next step would be to also make the generation possible when the package is added to the repo.
For example, adding it to the repo-add tool.

Ok, thanks. I'm waiting for it in suspence

wuischke · 2008-01-11 15:01:11

I've switched to testing just to test pacman 3.10 - and it's a nice improvement to the last version. The single mirrorlist is great and simplifies setting up the system even further and so far I haven't encountered any problems.

Good work!

clarence · 2008-01-12 02:10:12

I was expecting spinning hub caps on this release?

Oh wells... Thanks to all the devs and the bug reporters for making pacman the most awesomest package manager out there.

i owes you's alls beers!

lucke · 2008-01-12 02:15:20

I hail you, Arch overlords (with those fancy thrones of yours), for delivering another fantastic pacman release.

Allan · 2008-01-12 02:17:23

clarence wrote:

i owes you's alls beers!

Damn, I was just in Perth....

dolby · 2008-01-12 06:25:43

can the files provided by a package be viewed from abs somehow without installing the package now that .FILELIST was removed?
ive been looking for a way to get as much of the functionability the archlinux.org site offers as i can in the command line and was considering installing again abs after more than a year without it. filelist was a very handy feature from this point of view

shining · 2008-01-12 11:22:56

dolby wrote:

can the files provided by a package be viewed from abs somehow without installing the package now that .FILELIST was removed?
ive been looking for a way to get as much of the functionability the archlinux.org site offers as i can in the command line and was considering installing again abs after more than a year without it. filelist was a very handy feature from this point of view

What do you mean, viewing the file from abs?
If you had .FILELIST, it means you built the package anyway, right?
If that's the case, just do pacman -Qlp <package>. but well, you can also just do tar -tf <package>

jacko · 2008-01-12 14:19:19

i owes you's alls beers!

well in honor of pacman working so well, I guess I will salute it myself. (beer)

dolby · 2008-01-12 17:23:57

shining wrote:

dolby wrote:
can the files provided by a package be viewed from abs somehow without installing the package now that .FILELIST was removed?
ive been looking for a way to get as much of the functionability the archlinux.org site offers as i can in the command line and was considering installing again abs after more than a year without it. filelist was a very handy feature from this point of view
What do you mean, viewing the file from abs?
If you had .FILELIST, it means you built the package anyway, right?
If that's the case, just do pacman -Qlp <package>. but well, you can also just do tar -tf <package>

it seems abs didnt really distribute .FILELIST files. i dont know why but i thought it did. as you say the package needs to be built to have one which is ofc logical since the .FILELIST was part of the built package.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-01-11 04:23:05

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#27 2008-01-11 04:25:54

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#28 2008-01-11 05:24:29

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#29 2008-01-11 05:31:13

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#30 2008-01-11 07:09:01

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#31 2008-01-11 07:10:30

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#32 2008-01-11 07:19:58

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#33 2008-01-11 07:27:52

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#34 2008-01-11 07:38:47

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#35 2008-01-11 11:37:45

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#36 2008-01-11 15:01:11

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#37 2008-01-12 02:10:12

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#38 2008-01-12 02:15:20

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#39 2008-01-12 02:17:23

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#40 2008-01-12 06:25:43

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#41 2008-01-12 11:22:56

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#42 2008-01-12 14:19:19

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

#43 2008-01-12 17:23:57

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 in [testing]

Board footer