Hello Ben, thanks for your bug report. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 20:05, Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> wrote: > 8715 18:36:59 --- SIGCHLD (Child exited) @ 0 (0) --- > [...] > 9696 18:57:09 execve("/bin/sh", ["sh", "-c", "{ apt-cache show > 'linux-image-2."...], [/* 46 vars */]) = 0
Holy crap, 20 minutes?! are you sure there's nothing wrong on your system? For example I tried to replicate here and it takes just few seconds: Using 'Sandro Tosi <[email protected]>' as your from address. Getting status for linux-2.6... Process 5875 attached [pid 5875] 21:52:56 execve("/bin/sh", ["sh", "-c", "{ COLUMNS=79 dpkg --status 'lin"...], [/* 48 vars */]) = 0 ... [pid 6417] 21:53:02 execve("/usr/bin/apt-cache", ["apt-cache", "show", ""], [/* 47 vars */]) = 0 Process 6416 resumed Process 6417 detached [pid 6416] 21:53:02 --- SIGCHLD (Child exited) @ 0 (0) --- Process 6416 detached 21:53:02 --- SIGCHLD (Child exited) @ 0 (0) --- Which of the following packages is the bug in? > This can probably be fixed by passing multiple package names to > apt-cache once. You should probably filter out those empty package > names too. I agree we can optimize a bit the code (but there's probably a reason is done one-by-one) but that still quite weird that delay! is it possible that there are several packages pointing to linux-2.6 (that won't surprise me, you're one of the maints :) ) and so it slows damn down the performance? does it happen only on linux-2.6 or also on other packages? Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
