On 03-11-2014 07:24, Richard Melville wrote: >> >>>> Not at all -- I'm glad to help. Do you have any idea why both Paco and >>> Porg work for me but not for you? >> >> Porg sometimes logs files that are not installed in the system, but in >> the source directory. > > > I can't comment about a porg generality because, as I've said, until I ran > your tests, I've only used paco. > > Running your porg test worked flawlessly for me. I still don't understand > why you're seeing different results for porg generally, and for paco in > your test. What would be influencing the results? Were you using the same > versions as I did?
$ porg -sFdd porg; paco -sMFCndd paco 1.3M 19 10/29/14 13:11 porg-0.7 1.7M [ ] 20 [ ] ( ) 13-Sep-2014 08:36 paco-2.0.9 The problems I had with paco were there perhaps always. I have a vague memory that until some version, it may have worked fine, because only sudden I started seeing the problems with mozilla, then with other packages. No, I am "not seeing different results for porg generally", if I understand the sentence correctly. First let me say: I like porg and paco. Only I think they must be used with some care. My first uses were when I updated three packages in the book. I always follow my work with paco, and now, with porg, which I prefer. porg -sFdd sqlite-3.8.7.1 gdb-7.8.1 && paco -sMFCndd sqlite-3.8.7 gdb-7.8 28M 77 10/30/14 20:28 gdb-7.8.1 13M 733 10/30/14 11:25 sqlite-3.8.7.1 26M [2.1M] 66 [ 9] ( ) 12-Oct-2014 12:43 gdb-7.8 14M [ ] 732 [ ] ( 9) 17-Oct-2014 21:12 sqlite-3.8.7 I miss in porg, as I said, the better database, which has information about files shared by more than one package (5th column), size of files that are missing (2nd column) and number of missing files (4th column). After any install, I removed the source file directory rm -rf gdb-7.8 and updated: paco -u gdb This many times updated the sizes of installed files for previous versions, and, if files were missing, updated size for the just installed package. I have no way of knowing that with porg. MISSING FILES Whenever you have missing files, it is because temporary files installed in the source directory are logged. For gdb-7.8, there are 9 files missing, missing size is 2.1M $ paco -m gdb-7.8 gdb-7.8: /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/annotate.info /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gcore.1 /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gdb-cfg.texi /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gdb.1 /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gdb.info /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gdbinit.5 /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/gdbserver.1 /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/gdb/doc/version.subst Notice that /home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.10.12-12h40m19s/gdb-7.8/ was the source directory, which was removed after install. Now, I installed gdb-7.8.1 using porg, so it does not have info about missing files, but after my experience with paco, I know they are there, and can retrieve wit: $ porg -f gdb-7.8.1 | grep fernando /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/annotate.info /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gcore.1 /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gdb-cfg.texi /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gdb.1 /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gdb.info /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gdbinit.5 /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/gdbserver.1 /home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2014.10.30-20h22m09s/gdb-7.8.1/gdb/doc/version.subst So, porg is listing files that are nowhere in the HD. Essentially the same that paco used to list as missing. In this aspect, paco is superior. With git, things are worse: $ porg -f git-2.1.3 | grep fernando | wc -l 29 There are 29 files incorrectly logged. SHARED FILES $ paco -fc sqlite-3.8.7 sqlite-3.8.7: /usr/bin/sqlite3 /usr/include/sqlite3.h /usr/include/sqlite3ext.h /usr/lib/libsqlite3.la /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc /usr/share/man/man1/sqlite3.1 You see that 9 files are reported as shared, and above they are listed. They are shared, e.g. with sqlite-3.8.7.1: $ porg -f sqlite-3.8.7.1 | grep -E "`paco -fc sqlite-3.8.7 | xargs echo | cut -d: -f2 | cut -d' ' -f2- | sed 's/ /|/g'`" /usr/bin/sqlite3 /usr/include/sqlite3.h /usr/include/sqlite3ext.h /usr/lib/libsqlite3.la /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc /usr/share/man/man1/sqlite3.1 I miss porg giving me the shared files. Bottom line: If paco didn't miss actually installed files, I would still prefer paco, not porg. I believe that the features removed from porg are the ones that made paco error, but it is a shame removing, instead of fixing. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
