Author Topic: Package Manager (Read 5648 times)

systemparadox · « **on:** January 05, 2005, 10:49:26 am »

I don't want to sound like I'm slagging off the developers here, because they are doing a great job, but...

Why is the package manager that comes with OZ 3.5.2 Opie soooo slow?
Konqueror installed ok, but I left it going and came back an hour later, so I have no idea how long it actually took. Konqueror doesn't seem to like my net connection, so I tried to install opera. 3 crashes and 40 mins later it finishes.
I have tried installing the packages from the fat partition on my sd, the ext partition on my sd (where they are going) and a nfs network share via wifi (i think this is a slight improvement), but they are all still depressingly slow.

I have a rom with 46 megs of ram, and it never has less than 2 megs spare.
Whilst installing packages, the graphical version makes the whole z unusable for the duration of the installation. It sometimes crashes, especially if I try to do anything else.
When I use the command line version, it seems to have a higher success rate, and the z will at least respond if i press a button or tap something.

Is this a known bug?
How can I speed it up? It's like it's only using the 64k cache or something.
What package manager does everyone else use?

Thanks for the help
Simon

lardman · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2005, 11:41:22 am »

Quote

Why is the package manager that comes with OZ 3.5.2 Opie soooo slow?

It may be the oz.org site which is slowing you down as it is very slow. Try altering the src lines in /etc/ipkg.conf accordingly.

Quote

I have a rom with 46 megs of ram, and it never has less than 2 megs spare.

Was this a typo? If so, remember that cache memory is free memory being used for something useful while it's not needed.

Quote

What package manager does everyone else use?

Ipkg from the command line in my case.

Si

systemparadox · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2005, 12:20:39 pm »

Quote

It may be the oz.org site which is slowing you down as it is very slow. Try altering the src lines in /etc/ipkg.conf accordingly.

I haven't actually installed any packages directly from the feed. I always download them with my laptop and then copy them to the z.

Quote

Was this a typo? If so, remember that cache memory is free memory being used for something useful while it's not needed.

No it wasn't. There are four categories in the memory section: used, buffers, cached and free.
used always seems to be around 15mb, buffers about 100k, free anything between 2meg and 20meg and cached the rest.

What other package managers are there?
What does ipkg use for temp space? memory, ram, root, the place the package is going?

If I copy a file from my sd to my sd its as depressingly slow as ipkg, but if I copy it to ram first and then copy it to the sd it works out much faster.

systemparadox · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2005, 09:08:42 am »

Arrgghhh!!! Everytime I try and convince myself that I'm being too perfectionist it goes and crashes. It's crashed so badly this time that I am having to reflash. And I'm getting quite fed up with not being able to touch my z whilst it's installing any packages.

Another question: If I tell it to install a package from the feed to sd, and that package has dependencies, where are the dependencies installed? The space on root has decreased everytime I check: i did have 1.5megs but now i only have 400k and all i've been doing recently is install packages.

Does anybody else get this behavior with ipkg?

lardman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2005, 11:17:32 am »

They will be installed to the same location (assuming they need to be installed).

Use the command line. I don't get any lock-ups.

Create a local feed (download the Packages file) from the directory and alter /etc/ipkg.conf.

Si

systemparadox · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2005, 03:12:24 pm »

I finally got round to installing aqpkg.
Why T _F_ doesn't aqpkg come with OZ instead of ipkg? It is so much better and it just works (and I've only installed 2 packages with it). I can do things that ipkg would make me have to reflash just for trying- things like... tapping the screen... changing the brightness... pressing the home key... aqpkg will even let me use my z whilst it is installing!!!
And it is soooo much faster!

Is there any reason at all why ipkg is preinstalled rather than aqpkg?

Wasn't aqpkg the default package manager in one of the earlier OZ releases?

lardman · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2005, 06:44:13 am »

Quote

Wasn't aqpkg the default package manager in one of the earlier OZ releases?

Yes.

Quote

Why T _F_ doesn't aqpkg come with OZ instead of ipkg?

I think you have your names confused. ipkg is still there, aqpkg uses it. ipkg is a command line program. I think what you want to curse is called opie-packagemanager (or something like that) which is the default GUI package manager which aqpkg replaces.

Si

ksignorini · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2005, 08:13:52 am »

I use the command line ipkg (and ipkg-link since I install everything to sd card), but I am wondering the same thing:

Why isn't aqpkg the default packagemanager if opie-packagemanager is broken?

Thanks,
Kent!

Mickeyl · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2005, 08:35:16 am »

Because it is the successor to aqpkg. It may be not finished, but it is better and needs testing. This is the OZ unstable tree, remember?

Hrw · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2005, 10:07:39 am »

and newer version of opie-packagemanager is available in "upgrades" feed.

systemparadox · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2005, 12:32:32 pm »

Quote

Because it is the successor to aqpkg. It may be not finished, but it is better and needs testing. This is the OZ unstable tree, remember?

I am aware that this is the unstable tree, but I can't see any way at all that opie-packagemanager is better or more stable than aqpkg, or any way it succeeds it- apart from (probably) being written after.

If you do want more features in the packagemanager (and there are currently more features in aqpkg), why aren't you adding them to aqpkg rather than writing a whole packagemanager from scratch?

(I sure hope it isn't more stability you are looking for- the irony would too much)
(though I haven't tried the upgraded packagemanager yet)

Mickeyl · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2005, 01:15:35 pm »

Quote

If you do want more features in the packagemanager (and there are currently more features in aqpkg), why aren't you adding them to aqpkg rather than writing a whole packagemanager from scratch?

Excuse me, but more features is not everything we developers care about. There's something like internal quality of a program which affects maintainability and - yes indeed - more stability in the long run.

We can continue talking about why we started the rewrite after you have been looking into the architecture and the source code of aqpkg.

drw · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2005, 04:35:31 pm »

Quote

I am aware that this is the unstable tree, but I can't see any way at all that opie-packagemanager is better or more stable than aqpkg, or any way it succeeds it- apart from (probably) being written after.

If you do want more features in the packagemanager (and there are currently more features in aqpkg), why aren't you adding them to aqpkg rather than writing a whole packagemanager from scratch?

(I sure hope it isn't more stability you are looking for- the irony would too much)
(though I haven't tried the upgraded packagemanager yet)
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Can you please tell me what features aqpkg implements that opie-packagemanager does not?

Currently, opie-packagemanager has more features than aqpkg, such as support for compressed feeds (src/gz, used by Familiar, OZ), better package filtering (based on things like: source feed, installation status, installed to destination, etc.), native package linking (do not require ipkg-link with its problems). Plus there are fixes to many of aqpkg's shortcomings in regards to UI, package version comparisons and interface with ipkg.

Now I realize that there are some stability issues currently. There have been memory leaks identified in libipkg which causes most of the problems. One developer has sent a patch to the maintainer of libipkg, with no response (that I am aware of). This is not to lay blame elsewhwere, but to let you know that we are aware of the issues and are trying to resolve them.

Also, as the maintainer of aqpkg and creator of opie-packagemanager, I can tell you first-hand that aqpkg's code was a mess (and part of that blame is mine). Opie-packagemanager in reality uses much of the original aqpkg code, just reorganized and structured much better. It has allowed me to implement new features much quicker than would have been possible with aqpkg.

Please try the latest version of opie-packagemanager, it fixes package linking, supports the compressed feeds and has some other UI tweaks/improvements.

drw

ksignorini · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2005, 01:21:57 am »

This sounds interesting (like I said, I use the command line ipkg). I think I'm gonna give this a shot.

But two questions (sort of):

1. In another thread someone mentioned the last CVS version of the package manager installs package deps to RAM and not the location of the initial package being installed. Does the one in upgrades fix this?

2. What on earth is a compressed feed? (Is it a .gz version of an entire feed directory? Cuz' that would make downloading a whole feed WAY easier than what I'm doing using a dir grabber to grab all the files...) And if it is this, where do I get it?

Thanks,
Kent!

nakarti · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2005, 01:50:46 am »

I second the using command line ipkg -dest ram instead of packagemanager(which is horribly unstable and breaks installs when it freezes, though maybe the upgrade fixed it)
Two reasons: first stated, second: SSH and a full-size keyboard.
Don't forget to ipkg-link your packages and their dependencies.

News:

Author Topic: Package Manager (Read 5648 times)