Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

toofishes · 2008-01-13 19:24:28

TheGrudge wrote:

I really like the new pacman, especially the new mirrorlist and the sync-directory for the pacman database. But somehow pacman seems to be much slower than before. It takes ages to search for a package in the first run. I ran
pacman -Sc
and
pacman-optimize
and removed all old database directories. But still it is very slow. I'm running pacman on a ext3 filesystem. Anyone has the same experience?

If you by chance mean "pacman -Qi", then you are correct- things have changed a bit. Instead of storing requiredby entries in the DB, we compute them dynamically which greatly cuts down on problems we have had in the past getting these things right.

In all other pacman operations, I would say the speed has been GREATLY improved. We use much better algorithms that reduce the complexity quite a bit (O(n log n) instead of O(n*n), for example). Basically the slowest part is the DB loading at the moment, which we will continue to address. Once it is in filesystem cache it is no longer an issue.

TheGrudge · 2008-01-13 20:18:38

shining wrote:

That's strange, I didn't notice any slowdowns when switching to 3.1. And I'm not aware of any changes that could explain that.
3.1 is still limited in the same way by the filesystem than 3.0 was.
You find all operations slower, or one in particular? When you said "search for a package", did that refer to -Ss ?

Yes I am referring to 'pacman -Ss', on the first run (after a reboot) it is VEEERY slow, much slower then 2.9.x and 3.0 was.
But other operations seem to be faster, I can agree with that now...

Stefan Husmann · 2008-01-13 23:02:42

Hello,

maybe it is documented somewhere, but namcap cannot handle packages generated by the makepkg of the new pacman-package.

[root@bertrand ~]# namcap /opt/abs/emacs-unicode/emacs-unicode-2-20080113-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
Error: /opt/abs/emacs-unicode/emacs-unicode-2-20080113-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz is not a package
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/namcap", line 132, in <module>
    for j in pkgtar.getmembers():
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'getmembers'

emacs-unicode is only an example.

toofishes · 2008-01-13 23:13:20

Stefan Husmann wrote:

Hello,
maybe it is documented somewhere, but namcap cannot handle packages generated by the makepkg of the new pacman-package.
[root@bertrand ~]# namcap /opt/abs/emacs-unicode/emacs-unicode-2-20080113-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
Error: /opt/abs/emacs-unicode/emacs-unicode-2-20080113-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz is not a package
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/namcap", line 132, in <module>
    for j in pkgtar.getmembers():
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'getmembers'
emacs-unicode is only an example.

It has been patched, but there has not been a new release yet.

http://projects.archlinux.org/git/gitwe … cb2287a94e

Stefan Husmann · 2008-01-15 16:05:21

It has been patched, but there has not been a new release yet.

namcap-git from the AUR works. Thank you for the hint.

gazj · 2008-01-15 20:04:43

finferflu wrote:

Hmm, it hasn't hit my repository yet. Annoying. Any good updated server nearby England to suggest?
I'm currently using the Irish one. The one in Manchester seems to constantly be outdated or down...

There is a new UK mirror at the University of Kent mirror service, see the thread below

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38922

Last edited by gazj (2008-01-15 20:05:18)

stavrosg · 2008-01-15 21:01:32

finferflu wrote:

Thanks tlaloc,
my current repo usually takes all the 24 h to sync, since when I see some upgrade on the Arch website I get it the day after. For example, I have just upgraded and got a pacman upgrade to version 3.0.6-2.
I will try the mirrors you suggested, at least for pacman 3.1. Thanks

That's not a bad thing actually -- You have enough time to be warned of flaky updates and such and avoid or delay them until a workaround or corrected package is found

You don't do a -Syu everyday anyway, do you?

mrunion · 2008-01-16 03:14:34

I do a pacman -Syu everyday. Is that wrong?

chicha · 2008-01-16 09:25:41

I do pacman -Syu every day (once), and I do not think it is wrong, but stavrosg is so right : no need to have an update the day it is released, do we ? I prefere having an update 1 or 2 days after and see what is happening on the forums in case of problems. In particular for critical packages such kernel26, gcc, glibc ...

It may happen that I really need the new version of a software very quickly. But in this case I use ABS and build it my self before it is released by Arch devs This is one of the thing I love with Arch : the ease of updating a package.

I also take the occasion of this post to thank very much all Pacman's dev for their great job. This new version works perfectly and I like the new features and optimizations very much !

Last edited by chicha (2008-01-16 09:25:54)

stavrosg · 2008-01-16 16:14:47

mrunion wrote:

I do a pacman -Syu everyday. Is that wrong?

It isn't, of course. You could put a cron job to do it every hour too.

It is that this 'need' for the "latest and gratest, as fast as possible" is a bit artificial. As chicha said, if you desperately need an update, you can build it yourself until the official package arrives. You could (and should) even patch the earlier version with the fix (if it is a bug you are suffering from). But a mirror taking a few hours more to update is a non-issue in my humble opinion.

The actual purpose/point of the question was that, if you update once a week, the new version would come the moment you updated anyway. So why bother seeking mirros around?

Last edited by stavrosg (2008-01-16 16:18:55)

mrunion · 2008-01-16 19:48:52

Oh, I'm good with the 24-hours behind thing. I kinda use it as a "pad" to see if the forums light up with "xxx is broke" before actually doing the update. If there is a major update -- like a kernel or something -- I read the form before updating anyway.

I just thought maybe it was "bad" to be doing that.

funkyou · 2008-01-21 16:47:53

Hey,

big thanks for the fast move of pacman 3.1.1 to testing

shining · 2008-01-21 17:27:48

funkyou wrote:

Hey,
big thanks for the fast move of pacman 3.1.1 to testing

Yes, hopefully this works correctly now, so that you can use the new provision syntax (foo=3.5.8) for kdemod packages, and that mess will be over

funkyou · 2008-01-22 09:31:30

shining wrote:

Yes, hopefully this works correctly now, so that you can use the new provision syntax (foo=3.5.8) for kdemod packages, and that mess will be over

Works as expected, mess is over

Arch Linux

#26 2008-01-13 19:24:28

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#27 2008-01-13 20:18:38

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#28 2008-01-13 23:02:42

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#29 2008-01-13 23:13:20

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#30 2008-01-15 16:05:21

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#31 2008-01-15 20:04:43

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#32 2008-01-15 21:01:32

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#33 2008-01-16 03:14:34

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#34 2008-01-16 09:25:41

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#35 2008-01-16 16:14:47

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#36 2008-01-16 19:48:52

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#37 2008-01-21 16:47:53

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#38 2008-01-21 17:27:48

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

#39 2008-01-22 09:31:30

Re: Pacman 3.1.0 moving to [core]

Board footer