Shaman is flaky

SevenThunders · 2009-10-16 06:47:37

It seems like some of the more recent archlinux upgrades as of Oct. 2009 (though starting in Sept. I think) have broken shaman to some extent.
I'm running shaman 1.2.1 and I've noticed that it successfully installs a package less than 50 percent of the time. Moreover the progress bar is broken and doesn't change during downloads.
It will usually fail in some cryptic manner during the final cleanup phase. The log file doesn't seem to show any problems with shaman. Moreover pacman and yaourt work flawlessly.

I did notice that during a recent install witth yaourt one of the mirrors was not responding but I don't know if that affects shaman. While I don't mind using the command line package managers, having a graphical front end is especially useful when searching the package databases. Hopefully these problems can be resolved, or am I the only one having these issues?

SevenThunders · 2009-10-16 07:19:59

Actually today nothing installs via shaman. Also if I attempt to go to the settings window it immediately crashes. By the way are there any other graphical front ends besides shaman that are useable?

tomk · 2009-10-16 08:39:33

For shaman issues, go here.

For other guis, go here.

wantilles · 2009-10-16 22:14:43

Shaman is completely unreliable.

As all pacman GUIs are.

Do NOT use it.

Use only native pacman.

SevenThunders · 2009-10-17 04:59:34

The other guis for pacman are basically useless and shaman simply doesn't work for me so I guess I have no choice but to use the command line. As I get older I've found command line applications less appealing. Too much arcana to have to remember. Like how do I search packages or package descriptions from the command line?

Ashren · 2009-10-17 05:30:56

SevenThunders wrote:

Too much arcana to have to remember.

Well, perhaps Arch isn't for you then.

SevenThunders wrote:

Like how do I search packages or package descriptions from the command line?

man pacman.

Hint:
pacman -Ss (package name)

ngoonee · 2009-10-17 06:06:42

Pacman's command line options are arcana? Perhaps Arch isn't for you....

Anyway, the wiki on this isn't exactly very long, and you can just keep a bookmark to it. Do a few updates and it'll be automatic.

stefanwilkens · 2009-10-17 10:54:00

wantilles wrote:

Shaman is completely unreliable.
As all pacman GUIs are.
Do NOT use it.
Use only native pacman.

I have actually found it to be working properly, I've just installed several packages which worked properly for me

my system is completely up to date.

masterkoppa · 2009-10-18 17:37:58

SevenThunders wrote:

The other guis for pacman are basically useless and shaman simply doesn't work for me so I guess I have no choice but to use the command line. As I get older I've found command line applications less appealing. Too much arcana to have to remember. Like how do I search packages or package descriptions from the command line?

To help with this issue I have found that using the alias command on the .bashrc file has helped alot. The biggest use I give this command is when decompressing files on my text-only server. For more info on this go here http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bashrc

sand_man · 2009-10-18 22:55:14

SevenThunders wrote:

As I get older I've found command line applications less appealing.

Maybe you are just getting too old then

rson451 · 2009-10-18 23:05:21

Just to put this out there. Shaman is NOT a pacman gui. It is a libalpm frontend, last time I checked.

SevenThunders · 2009-10-22 01:49:19

sand_man wrote:

SevenThunders wrote:
As I get older I've found command line applications less appealing.
Maybe you are just getting too old then

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Still I'd like to have a working shaman on my 64 bit arch linux.

Am I the only person here with a non working version of shaman?

Whether arch is for me is another issue all together. I like arch because of it's flexibility.

For some operations I prefer to not use the command line, though I've yet to run a version of linux where the command line can be completely avoided. Maybe PCLinuxOS comes close, but that is almost like a windows clone.

jazz452 · 2009-10-27 15:57:34

SevenThunders wrote:

sand_man wrote:
SevenThunders wrote:
As I get older I've found command line applications less appealing.
Maybe you are just getting too old then
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Still I'd like to have a working shaman on my 64 bit arch linux.
Am I the only person here with a non working version of shaman?

Whether arch is for me is another issue all together. I like arch because of it's flexibility.
For some operations I prefer to not use the command line, though I've yet to run a version of linux where the command line can be completely avoided. Maybe PCLinuxOS comes close, but that is almost like a windows clone.

No your not the only one having problems,I can select packages to install but after that things like process queue have no effect.
I to am old and becoming lazy just started using gnome instead of openbox.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-10-16 06:47:37

Shaman is flaky

#2 2009-10-16 07:19:59

Re: Shaman is flaky

#3 2009-10-16 08:39:33

Re: Shaman is flaky

#4 2009-10-16 22:14:43

Re: Shaman is flaky

#5 2009-10-17 04:59:34

Re: Shaman is flaky

#6 2009-10-17 05:30:56

Re: Shaman is flaky

#7 2009-10-17 06:06:42

Re: Shaman is flaky

#8 2009-10-17 10:54:00

Re: Shaman is flaky

#9 2009-10-18 17:37:58

Re: Shaman is flaky

#10 2009-10-18 22:55:14

Re: Shaman is flaky

#11 2009-10-18 23:05:21

Re: Shaman is flaky

#12 2009-10-22 01:49:19

Re: Shaman is flaky

#13 2009-10-27 15:57:34

Re: Shaman is flaky

Board footer