pacman does not show the correctly total download size. Also, the result is different from pacman -Su.
Example:
# pacman -Qu
Checking for package upgrades... warning: avant-window-navigator: local (0.2.6-2) is newer than community (0.2.6-1) warning: iptables: local (1.4.2-1) is newer than core (1.4.0-2) warning: xorg-server: local (1.4.99.906-2) is newer than extra (1.4.2-2)
Remove (1): bluez-libs-3.32-1
Total Removed Size: 0.31 MB
Targets (8): bluez-4.1-1 evolution-data-server-2.24.1-1 gnome-control-center-2.24.0.1-3 k3b-1.0.5-2 libgphoto2-2.4.3-1 samba-3.2.4-3 smbclient-3.2.4-3 tdb-3.2.4-1
Total Download Size: 0.00 MB Total Installed Size: 145.76 MB
# pacman -Su
:: Starting full system upgrade... :: Replace bluez-libs with testing/bluez? [Y/n] warning: avant-window-navigator: local (0.2.6-2) is newer than community (0.2.6-1) warning: iptables: local (1.4.2-1) is newer than core (1.4.0-2) warning: xorg-server: local (1.4.99.906-2) is newer than extra (1.4.2-2) resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts...
Remove (1): bluez-libs-3.32-1
Total Removed Size: 0.31 MB
Targets (8): bluez-4.1-1 evolution-data-server-2.24.1-1 gnome-control-center-2.24.0.1-3 k3b-1.0.5-2 libgphoto2-2.4.3-1 tdb-3.2.4-1 smbclient-3.2.4-3 samba-3.2.4-3
Total Download Size: 49.51 MB Total Installed Size: 145.76 MB
pacman -Qu gives me 0MB, while pacman -Su shows almost 50MB
Both shows the same Total Installed Size, tought.
Im using the lastest pacman:
# pacman -Q pacman pacman 3.2.1-1
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11846
-- Hugo
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Hugo Doria hugodoria@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing to add to what Nagy said there. He gave the link to a discussion on the ML about how to implement this differently, in a better way, which would also fix this bug. But I have currently neither the time nor the motivation to finish this discussion, and even less to implement it.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Xavier shiningxc@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Hugo Doria hugodoria@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing to add to what Nagy said there. He gave the link to a discussion on the ML about how to implement this differently, in a better way, which would also fix this bug. But I have currently neither the time nor the motivation to finish this discussion, and even less to implement it.
I've just had very little time lately to look at this. Hopefully I will get a chance at some point but until then this will be on hold for a bit.
-Dan
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Hugo Doria hugodoria@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing to add to what Nagy said there. He gave the link to a discussion on the ML about how to implement this differently, in a better way, which would also fix this bug. But I have currently neither the time nor the motivation to finish this discussion, and even less to implement it.
On the other hand, we may completely rework -Qu (atm the patch is waiting for Dan's response), which would completely eliminate this problem (and the whole download size feature(?)): http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-October/013026.html
However, I agree that we should change our compute_download_size method. Maybe we should compute download size during adding the sync package into the target list (and maybe introduce a new helper function for this). This method and the current one have a little drawback. Sometimes we compute download_size even if it is not needed: -Sp. So compute "on request" is may be better, I don't know. (But how to indicate not computed, set -1 in each alpm_pkg_new? Ugly.)
Bye
pacman-dev@lists.archlinux.org