[arch-general] [OT] Re: Are base packages assumed?
shiningxc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 10:20:04 EDT 2009
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Marco<domanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 :
Estimating upgrade size is not easy either, it is not only "new 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
> 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.
More information about the arch-general