[arch-general] [OT] Re: Are base packages assumed?

[Xavier]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Marco<domanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Edgar,
>
>> Off topic: The ~2 G size of the installed packages pacman
>> shows is complete size of all updated packages not the
>> difference between the currently installed size and the size
>> after the upgrade, right? So the complete upgrade might
>> have worked for you.
>
> Bad experiences have thaught me not to do that. It might have, though.
> I didn't follow the development of pacman, so I actually don't know if
> there is a sort of check on available disk space yet.
>

No check on available disk space : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11639
It is more complicated than it sounds, the old check was problematic
so it was removed :
http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=ed13ac2cc8dd15d8a1

Estimating upgrade size is not easy either, it is not only "new size -
old size".
Maybe "new installed size - old installed size + new packaged size"
would be accurate enough.
But this is meaningless on a partitioned system.
Also it does not take eventual scriptlets which could create files
during install.

> Why not implement a '--no-cache' option for pacman, to delete the
> downloaded tar.gz right after the successful installation of each pkg?
>

This was also requested here : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9710
As Nagy mentioned, one problem here is that file-conflicts check
require to first download all the packages.