On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 09:01:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Thanks, seems to work fine, I have no error/warning at least.
OK, so you get comparable results. It is very odd that there so much a
difference between
batch of 1 package and
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 06:45:03PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Thanks, please find a popularity-contest script that uses dpkg -L by batch.
The size of the batch is $dpkg_batch_size at the start of the script.
Below are timings on my laptop
On Sun, 08 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Thanks, seems to work fine, I have no error/warning at least.
batch of 1 pkg: 3m10.789s
batch of 2 pkgs: 0m21.769s
batch of 3 pkgs: 0m6.362s
batch of 4 pkgs: 0m4.763s
batch of 5 pkgs: 0m4.714s
batch of 10 pkgs: 0m4.670s
Direct access:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:08:51 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:51:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog
Hi,
On Sat, 07 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Thanks, please find a popularity-contest script that uses dpkg -L by batch.
The size of the batch is $dpkg_batch_size at the start of the script.
Below are timings on my laptop (with a fast solid-state disk):
Direct access : 2.214 s
batch
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:09:06PM +0200, Witold Baryluk wrote:
On 04-23 12:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
(BTW, popcon is mainly run from cron so interactive
On 04-23 12:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
(BTW, popcon is mainly run from cron so interactive performance is not so
critical.)
The issue is not interactive
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
(BTW, popcon is mainly run from cron so interactive performance is not so
critical.)
The issue is not interactive performances but waste of system resource. Users
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:10:58PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi,
Bill Allombert wrote:
This is not possible: forking dpkg for all installed packages would be way
to slow and
resource intensive. We need a better option.
Bonus points if this interface has an option to point to
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Another issue with 'dpkg-query -L $(list-all-packages)' is that it is not
portable
to system with a command-line length limit.
I suppose popcon will have to process packages by chunk of 100, say.
You have xargs to solve this problem.
BTW, don't
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:06:26PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
We deliberately skip .list as we don't guarantee that we're always going
to use .list and there's no guaranty that the format of the file won't be
extended to store more
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On my system with 1200 packages (far below the average popcon submitter),
traditional popcon take 2s. Once patched with the attached patch to use dpkg
-L,
it take 30s. Slowing down 15 times popcon is not acceptable.
You can invoke dpkg -L less
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On my system with 1200 packages (far below the average popcon submitter),
traditional popcon take 2s. Once patched with the attached patch to use
dpkg -L,
it take 30s. Slowing
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On my system with 1200 packages (far below the average popcon submitter),
traditional popcon take 2s. Once patched with the attached
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:51:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On my system with 1200 packages (far below the average popcon
Hi,
Bill Allombert wrote:
This is not possible: forking dpkg for all installed packages would be way to
slow and
resource intensive. We need a better option.
It seems that what popularity-contest currently does is something like
for each installed package:
for each file in its
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:08:51 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:51:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
You can invoke dpkg -L less often by giving multiple
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:56AM +0200, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
Package: popularity-contest
Version: 1.52
Severity: important
I get errors from cron because of popcon:
/etc/cron.daily/popularity-contest:
popcon: file /var/lib/dpkg/info/liblouis2.list is missing
That file doesn't
Hi Bill,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
I get errors from cron because of popcon:
/etc/cron.daily/popularity-contest:
popcon: file /var/lib/dpkg/info/liblouis2.list is missing
That file doesn't exist, it's really /var/lib/dpkg/info/liblouis2:i386.list
due to the
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
I get errors from cron because of popcon:
/etc/cron.daily/popularity-contest:
popcon: file /var/lib/dpkg/info/liblouis2.list is missing
That file doesn't exist,
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
We deliberately skip .list as we don't guarantee that we're always going
to use .list and there's no guaranty that the format of the file won't be
extended to store more information. You should not read those files
directly.
Hello Raphael,
21 matches
Mail list logo
