packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

trc · 2010-02-05 04:38:05

hi, when I use packer -Syu it seems to take a long time to sync up with the aur database, I was wondering if this is normal.

bruenig · 2010-02-05 05:55:30

trc wrote:

hi, when I use packer -Syu it seems to take a long time to sync up with the aur database, I was wondering if this is normal.

Aur database moves very quickly here. Perhaps a bandwidth issue on your end.

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-05 05:59:44

It also depends on the number of AUR packages you have installed. Packer is way faster than yaourt for me.

trc · 2010-02-05 06:41:27

I only have a few AUR packages installed, the progress bar loads like in chunks of 7%, it will go from 7 to 14 to 21 etc.. I dunno, it's not a big deal. >_>

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-05 07:38:46

Are you keeping your packer package updated?
Make sure you run:
packer -S packer from time to time.

trc · 2010-02-05 07:57:13

my version of packer is up to date.

I just timed how long everything takes when I do packer -Syu and it takes around 15 seconds to sync with the regular package databases, and then it takes 55-60 seconds to sync with the aur database.

mezkov · 2010-02-05 10:56:21

It would be good, if there was "packer -Sc" option which would delete build files in /tmp directory

bruenig · 2010-02-05 18:16:45

packer -Sc exists, but right now it is aliased to rm -rf /tmp/packerbuild*

mezkov · 2010-02-05 19:56:37

I have newest version and it doesn't have option -Sc

bruenig · 2010-02-06 06:27:48

It was a joke. rm -rf /tmp/packerbuild*

DingoMD · 2010-02-06 16:36:25

Hope you don't mind some nitpicking...

packer -Syu --devel outputs the following:

:: Starting full aur upgrade...
warning: packer-20100206-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
warning: uzbl-experimental-git-20100206-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
warning: wmii-hg-2600-1 is up to date -- reinstalling

Aur Targets    (4): libixp-hg packer uzbl-experimental-git wmii-hg
Pacman Targets (4): git git mercurial txt2tags

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
warning: skipping target: git
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (4): perl-error-0.17016-1  git-1.6.6.1-1
             mercurial-1.4.3-1  txt2tags-2.5-3

Total Download Size:    9,77 MB
Total Installed Size:   25,96 MB

As you can see, git is getting installed twice, which leads to pacman spiting out a warning.
(BTW, packer is totally awesome )

X-dark · 2010-02-06 17:18:29

Thank you for your great work bruenig

bruenig · 2010-02-07 06:14:04

DingoMD wrote:

Hope you don't mind some nitpicking...

packer -Syu --devel outputs the following:

:: Starting full aur upgrade...
warning: packer-20100206-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
warning: uzbl-experimental-git-20100206-1 is up to date -- reinstalling
warning: wmii-hg-2600-1 is up to date -- reinstalling

Aur Targets    (4): libixp-hg packer uzbl-experimental-git wmii-hg
Pacman Targets (4): git git mercurial txt2tags

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
warning: skipping target: git
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (4): perl-error-0.17016-1  git-1.6.6.1-1
             mercurial-1.4.3-1  txt2tags-2.5-3

Total Download Size:    9,77 MB
Total Installed Size:   25,96 MB

As you can see, git is getting installed twice, which leads to pacman spiting out a warning.
(BTW, packer is totally awesome )

I pushed a fix. See if it works.

stryder · 2010-02-07 07:48:02

For this round's major upgrade, I did powerpill -Syuw for speedy download, then packer -Syu to upgrade everything at one go. Just works. Thanks.

DingoMD · 2010-02-07 11:38:48

bruenig wrote:

I pushed a fix. See if it works.

Thanks, it's fixed now.

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-07 14:44:56

bruenig

I just noticed that packer updates/downloads without even needing sudo! No root privileges required. Is this feature?

kaivalagi · 2010-02-07 15:05:22

sHyLoCk wrote:

I just noticed that packer updates/downloads without even needing sudo! No root privileges required. Is this feature?

Are you sure? I just updated packer and ran it in a fresh terminal session and it required root password input to complete a system update

@bruenig
Is there any chance I could use reflector or similar to handle multiple downloads at the same time in packer? Is there a configuration option for this at all anywhere in the script? (I haven't looked at the source regarding this yet). When doing a large update having concurrent downloads is what I am missing

Also, would an option to add installation status to any search output be possible? I don't mean all the time, but with an option set so it doesn't slow things down when not used. It's just I find it useful when searching for packages and switching between alternative versions of software etc

Thanks

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-02-07 15:06:05)

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-07 15:16:22

kaivalagi

Yup I type packer -Syyu and it starts updating. I don't have aliased it as packer= sudo packer in bashrc.
Hmm this is weird. Me and another person having this issue as well. My user is in wheel group with NOPASSWD on, but still if you don't mention "sudo command" it should require root privilege!

┤▶ ls -l /usr/bin/packer 
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 22436 Feb  6 20:09 /usr/bin/packer

MajorTom · 2010-02-07 15:24:29

Do you have /usr/bin/pacman or /usr/bin/pacman-color listed in sudoers with NOPASSWD?

Try this:
$ sudo -k
$ packer -Syu

kaivalagi · 2010-02-07 15:27:48

sHyLoCk wrote:

kaivalagi
Yup I type packer -Syyu and it starts updating. I don't have aliased it as packer= sudo packer in bashrc.
Hmm this is weird. Me and another person having this issue as well. My user is in wheel group with NOPASSWD on, but still if you don't mention "sudo command" it should require root privilege!
┤▶ ls -l /usr/bin/packer 
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 22436 Feb  6 20:09 /usr/bin/packer

Bizarre, I did an Syu not Syyu, could that be the difference? My user setup is probably the same as yours in terms of sudo requirements and the packer script privileges are identical.

When I next need an update I'll use Syyu and make sure I keep an eye on what happens

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-02-07 15:28:06)

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-07 15:29:51

MajorTom wrote:

Do you have /usr/bin/pacman or /usr/bin/pacman-color listed in sudoers with NOPASSWD?
Try this:
$ sudo -k
$ packer -Syu

http://omploader.org/vM2g2bg

@ kaivalagi

Yeah, I noticed this issue when MrG pointed out in our ArchBang Live CD where we replaced powerpill with packer.

Last edited by sHyLoCk (2010-02-07 15:30:58)

bruenig · 2010-02-07 19:18:36

Running packer -Syu as a normal user will first try to run pacman -Syu as sudo and if that cannot work, will run it with su -c. If perhaps you have used sudo recently though, sudo has that timeout thing where it will not ask you for a password in the next 15 minutes or whatnot. So perhaps that is why it is not asking you for permission. Or maybe you do have some sort of sudoers exception, who knows.

All of the aur stuff runs without root except when it installs built packages with pacman.

Anyways, you are giving it permission to do root stuff somewhere. I certainly have not found a way to escalate privileges without your having permission to.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-02-07 19:19:34)

bruenig · 2010-02-07 19:22:21

kaivalagi wrote:

sHyLoCk wrote:
I just noticed that packer updates/downloads without even needing sudo! No root privileges required. Is this feature?
Are you sure? I just updated packer and ran it in a fresh terminal session and it required root password input to complete a system update
@bruenig
Is there any chance I could use reflector or similar to handle multiple downloads at the same time in packer? Is there a configuration option for this at all anywhere in the script? (I haven't looked at the source regarding this yet). When doing a large update having concurrent downloads is what I am missing
Also, would an option to add installation status to any search output be possible? I don't mean all the time, but with an option set so it doesn't slow things down when not used. It's just I find it useful when searching for packages and switching between alternative versions of software etc
Thanks

There is no concurrent downloads stuff. I could add powerpill support perhaps. I don't use powerpill as I am on a slow connection. If someone could tell me what commands I should use when using powerpill, I can go ahead and call powerpill in those instances instead of pacman (when powerpill is installed of course). I presume -Syu and -S are the only relevant parts where I should be calling powerpill?

Oh and aur concurrent downloads would just be a mess since you are usually required to interact with each installed package by editing pkgbuilds and such and so I will probably not ever bother with that.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-02-07 19:23:04)

Xyne · 2010-02-07 20:05:28

I haven't looked at packer's code but you should be able to just replace the pacman path with the path to powerpill. All of pacman's arguments are recognized.

Btw, the way I've handled concurrent AUR downloads in bauerbill is to run parallel searches at each level in the dependency resolution, e.g. if the user requests "foo", "bar", "baz", collect all of their AUR dependencies in an array and then download their taurballs in parallel, then repeat for their dependencies.

I also wait with source downloads so that I can download all source files along with the packages for greater concurrency using a single metalink and aria2c, which is where the real benefits are as the taurballs are almost negligibly small. You could probably achieve the same effect using backgrounding and catching signals when children exit, but that might start to complicate your code.

Obviously I would recommend just using bauerbill if you want AUR support with powerpill, but there's nothing to prevent using it with other AUR frontends that wrap pacman.

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-08 01:29:57

bruenig wrote:

Running packer -Syu as a normal user will first try to run pacman -Syu as sudo

There you go, I use wheel NOPASSWD, and hence sudo doesn't ask for password. Thanks for clarifying.

Arch Linux

#251 2010-02-05 04:38:05

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#252 2010-02-05 05:55:30

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#253 2010-02-05 05:59:44

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#254 2010-02-05 06:41:27

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#255 2010-02-05 07:38:46

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#256 2010-02-05 07:57:13

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#257 2010-02-05 10:56:21

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#258 2010-02-05 18:16:45

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#259 2010-02-05 19:56:37

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#260 2010-02-06 06:27:48

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#261 2010-02-06 16:36:25

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#262 2010-02-06 17:18:29

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#263 2010-02-07 06:14:04

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#264 2010-02-07 07:48:02

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#265 2010-02-07 11:38:48

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#266 2010-02-07 14:44:56

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#267 2010-02-07 15:05:22

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#268 2010-02-07 15:16:22

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#269 2010-02-07 15:24:29

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#270 2010-02-07 15:27:48

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#271 2010-02-07 15:29:51

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#272 2010-02-07 19:18:36

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#273 2010-02-07 19:22:21

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#274 2010-02-07 20:05:28

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#275 2010-02-08 01:29:57

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

Board footer