Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 11:05:41

Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" in Debian?

Last edited by Mr. Alex (2010-12-31 11:06:07)

kaszak696 · 2010-12-31 11:27:25

No, since "pacman -T" is not doing any changes to filesystem. "man pacman" should tell you this.

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 12:51:51

I've already read the man page. Can "-T" be used outside scripts and package builds?

kaszak696 · 2010-12-31 13:33:42

Of course it can, it will give you a simple list of missing dependencies, it's on you to decide what will you do with that.

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 14:11:48

When I do "pacman -T", it checks the whole system instantly. HDD doesn't do anything. But when I install some package, it takes some time to check dependencies (a few seconds + HDD loading). Why?

falconindy · 2010-12-31 14:19:35

       -T, --deptest
           Check dependencies; this is useful in scripts such as makepkg to check installed packages. This operation will check each dependency
           specified and return a list of those which are not currently satisfied on the system. This operation accepts no other options. Example
           usage: pacman -T qt "bash>=3.2".

Not only does using -T without option make no sense, but the man page clearly explains its usage and even gives an example.

Allan · 2010-12-31 15:11:25

Mr. Alex wrote:

When I do "pacman -T", it checks the whole system instantly. HDD doesn't do anything. But when I install some package, it takes some time to check dependencies (a few seconds + HDD loading). Why?

pacman -T <pkg> just checks if "pkg" is installed. It does not dependency resolving.

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 15:42:50

So is there "apt-get install -f" alternate in pacman?

Allan · 2010-12-31 15:43:54

What does that do?

Dogmeat · 2010-12-31 15:46:07

Pacman Rosetta says apt-get install -f is pacman -U for Arch Linux.

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 16:23:48

> What does that do?

From man page:

-f, --fix-broken
Fix; attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place. This option, when used with install/remove, can omit any packages to permit APT to deduce a likely solution. Any Package that are specified must completely correct the problem. The option is sometimes necessary when running APT for the first time; APT itself does not allow broken package dependencies to exist on a system. It is possible that a system's dependency structure can be so corrupt as to require manual intervention (which usually means using dselect(8) or dpkg --remove to eliminate some of the offending packages). Use of this option together with -m may produce an error in some situations. Configuration Item: APT::Get::Fix-Broken.

Last edited by Mr. Alex (2010-12-31 16:24:05)

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 16:25:06

> Pacman Rosetta says apt-get install -f is pacman -U for Arch Linux.

"-f" fixes, "-U" installs.

Allan · 2010-12-31 16:35:21

Mr. Alex wrote:

> What does that do?
From man page:
-f, --fix-broken
Fix; attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place. This option, when used with install/remove, can omit any packages to permit APT to deduce a likely solution. Any Package that are specified must completely correct the problem. The option is sometimes necessary when running APT for the first time; APT itself does not allow broken package dependencies to exist on a system. It is possible that a system's dependency structure can be so corrupt as to require manual intervention (which usually means using dselect(8) or dpkg --remove to eliminate some of the offending packages). Use of this option together with -m may produce an error in some situations. Configuration Item: APT::Get::Fix-Broken.

pacman does not let you screw up dependencies unless you specify the "-d" flag... but:

allan@mugen ~ 
> pacman -Rd python-feedparser

Remove (1): python-feedparser-4.1-6

Total Removed Size:   0.26 MB

Do you want to remove these packages? [Y/n] 
(1/1) removing python-feedparser                   [######################] 100%

allan@mugen ~ 
> testdb
missing dependency for gpodder : python-feedparser

Mr. Alex · 2010-12-31 16:57:42

Thanks. Looks like this is the thing I was looking for...

Arch Linux

#1 2010-12-31 11:05:41

Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#2 2010-12-31 11:27:25

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#3 2010-12-31 12:51:51

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#4 2010-12-31 13:33:42

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#5 2010-12-31 14:11:48

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#6 2010-12-31 14:19:35

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#7 2010-12-31 15:11:25

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#8 2010-12-31 15:42:50

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#9 2010-12-31 15:43:54

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#10 2010-12-31 15:46:07

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#11 2010-12-31 16:23:48

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#12 2010-12-31 16:25:06

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#13 2010-12-31 16:35:21

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

#14 2010-12-31 16:57:42

Re: Is "pacman -T" like "apt-get install -f" ?

Board footer