SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Note: the times includes the time required to print results.
I made a patch to reduce time to print results (searchlistEX) when there are many matches; about 4 seconds to show 1800 packages.
I post it before commit becouse I have some questions of some part of that code.
Code:
--- a/src/slackpkgplus.sh
+++ b/src/slackpkgplus.sh
@@ -955,22 +955,17 @@ if [ "$SLACKPKGPLUS" = "on" ];then
local PNAME
printf "[ -16s ] [ -24s ] [ -40s ]\n" "Status" "Repository" "Package"
- for i in $1; do
- REPO=$(echo "$i" | cut -f1 -d":")
- PNAME=$(echo "$i" | cut -f2- -d":")
- if echo "$REPO" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
- REPO=$(echo "$REPO" | cut -f2- -d"_")
- else
- REPO=""
- fi
+ INSTPKGS="$(ls -f $ROOT/var/log/packages)"
- if [ -z "$REPO" ] && [ "$BASENAME" = "$(cutpkg ${PNAME})" ]; then
- continue
- fi
+ for i in $1; do
+ REPO=${i/:*/} #$(echo "$i" | cut -f1 -d":")
+ PNAME=${i/*:/} #PNAME=$(echo "$i" | cut -f2- -d":")
+
+ REPO=${REPO/SLACKPKGPLUS_/} #REPO=$(echo "$REPO" | cut -f2- -d"_")
# BASENAME is base package name
- BASENAME="$(cutpkg ${PNAME})"
+ BASENAME=${PNAME%-*-*-*} #BASENAME="$(cutpkg ${PNAME})"
# RAWNAME is Latest available version
RAWNAME="${PNAME/%.t[blxg]z/}"
@@ -981,8 +976,7 @@ if [ "$SLACKPKGPLUS" = "on" ];then
# First is the package already installed?
# Amazing what a little sleep will do
# exclusion is so much nicer :)
- INSTPKG=$(ls -1 $ROOT/var/log/packages | grep -e "^${BASENAME}-[^-]\+-[^-]\+-[^-]\+$")
- #INSTPKG=$(ls -1 $ROOT/var/log/packages | grep -e "^${BASENAME}-[^-]\+-\(${ARCH}\|fw\|noarch\)-[^-]\+")
+ INSTPKG=$(echo "$INSTPKGS"|grep "^${BASENAME}-[^-]\+-[^-]\+-[^-]\+$")
# INSTPKG is local version
if [ ! "${INSTPKG}" = "" ]; then
modification:
Code:
- if echo "$REPO" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
- REPO=$(echo "$REPO" | cut -f2- -d"_")
- else
- REPO=""
- fi
with this code slackpkg search does not show if a package is in slackware/ extra/ patches/ ...; simply does not show the repository name if it is an official package. Removing it and substituting with
Code:
REPO=${REPO/SLACKPKGPLUS_/}
the repository name for official packages is showned.
Code:
- if [ -z "$REPO" ] && [ "$BASENAME" = "$(cutpkg ${PNAME})" ]; then
- continue
- fi
with this code if the package is an official package and it is duplicated, it should be skipped.
Without this code the package should be showned.
However,
I made a patch to reduce time to print results (searchlistEX) when there are many matches; about 4 seconds to show 1800 packages.
I post it before commit becouse I have some questions of some part of that code.
modification:
Code:
- if echo "$REPO" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
- REPO=$(echo "$REPO" | cut -f2- -d"_")
- else
- REPO=""
- fi
with this code slackpkg search does not show if a package is in slackware/ extra/ patches/ ...; simply does not show the repository name if it is an official package. Removing it and substituting with
Code:
REPO=${REPO/SLACKPKGPLUS_/}
the repository name for official packages is showned.
Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerouno
Code:
- if [ -z "$REPO" ] && [ "$BASENAME" = "$(cutpkg ${PNAME})" ]; then
- continue
- fi
with this code if the package is an official package and it is duplicated, it should be skipped.
Without this code the package should be showned.
Well, I checked it and this code seems totally useless.
searchlistEX() is an adaptation of searchlist() from slackpkg (ie. in core-functions.sh), in which there's the same kind of code :
Code:
if [ "$BASENAME" = "$(cutpkg ${i})" ]; then
continue
fi
I did some test, and I find no case where this code is executed !
searchlistEX() is invoked with the only slackware:xf86-video-nouveau-1.0.12-i586-1 parameter.
Since I may failed to interpret the code, I wait a your response before commit.
As I said in this post, xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist misleads slackpkg because its name does not follow the "standard" naming scheme (ie. <basename>-<version>-<arch>-<build>), and slackpkg interprets the substring "blacklist" as being the version number. Therefore, this package is excluded by searchPackages() and is never shown.
If you edit /var/lib/slackpkg/pkglist, and change the line related to xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist this way :
Code:
extra xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist NOVER noarch 1 xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-NOVER-noarch-1 ./extra/xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist txz
slackpkg will found it :
Code:
$ slackpkg search xf86-video-nouveau
DONE
The list below shows all packages with name matching "xf86-video-nouveau".
[ Status ] [ Repository ] [ Package ]
installed xf86-video-nouveau-1.0.9-x86_64-2
uninstalled xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-NOVER-noarch-1
You can search specific files using "slackpkg file-search file".
For information purpose, here is how search works (in both slackpkg and slackpkg+) :
1. The user run slackpkg PATTERN.
2. searchPackages() is called with PATTERN in argument. It selects all packages that match this PATTERN. The selected packages are filtered according to their priorities. Therefore, when two packages A and B have the same basename, but A has precedence over B, the package B is deselected.
Nota: slackpkg has no searchPackages(). The filtering is done in a case statement (~ line #700 in core-functions.sh).
3. searchListEX() is called with the package selected in (2). For each selected package, a status is computed according to the installed packages (ie. installed, uninstalled, upgrade).
Nota: slackpkg has no searchListEX() and uses searchlist().
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerouno
Also please, post the patch for improving searchPackages()
--- slackpkgplus.sh.git 2016-01-13 11:03:14.165340859 +0100
+++ slackpkgplus.sh 2016-01-13 11:34:41.704425081 +0100
@@ -887,8 +887,8 @@
for i in ${PRIORITY[@]}; do
DIR="$i"
- if echo "$DIR" | grep -q "^[-_[:alnum:]]\+[:]" ; then
- DIR=$(echo "$i" | cut -f1 -d":")
+ if [[ "$DIR" =~ ^[-_[:alnum:]]+[:] ]] ; then # was if echo "$DIR" | grep -q "[a-zA-Z0-9]\+[:]" ; then
+ DIR=${DIR/:*/} # was DIR=$(echo "$i" | cut -f1 -d":")
fi
if [ "$CMD" == "file-search" ] ; then
@@ -917,11 +917,13 @@
fi
while read PKG ; do
- PKGDIR=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f1 -d" ")
- PKGBASENAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f2 -d" ")
- PKGFULLNAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f6 -d" ")
+ PKGDATA=( $PKG ) # PKGDATA([0]=DIR,[1]=BASENMAE,[5]=FULLNAME)
- if echo "$PKGDIR" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
+ PKGDIR=${PKGDATA[0]} # was PKGDIR=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f1 -d" ")
+ PKGBASENAME=${PKGDATA[1]} # was PKGBASENAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f2 -d" ")
+ PKGFULLNAME=${PKGDATA[5]} # was PKGFULLNAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f6 -d" ")
+
+ if [[ "$PKGDIR" =~ ^SLACKPKGPLUS_ ]] ; then # was if echo "$PKGDIR" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
grep -q "^repository:${PKGDIR}:basename:${PKGBASENAME}:" $PKGLIST && continue
else
grep -q ":basename:${PKGBASENAME}:" $PKGLIST && continue
Some samples (done with output disabled) :
Code:
$ time slackpkg search slackware64
DONE
The list below shows all packages with name matching "slackware64".
You can search specific files using "slackpkg file-search file".
real 0m4.806s
user 0m3.199s
sys 0m0.311s
The old version gives (output disabled) :
Code:
$ time slackpkg search slackware64
DONE
The list below shows all packages with name matching "slackware64".
You can search specific files using "slackpkg file-search file".
real 0m18.313s
user 0m10.236s
sys 0m1.097s
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerouno
However I think that cutpkg.awk is not the best in performance
xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-noarch-1.txz is not a package with unconvenzional name.
it is the package xf86-video-nouveau where the version is 'blacklist'
it must not be installed with
# installpkg xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-noarch-1.txz
but
# upgradepkg xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-noarch-1.txz
it will remove xf86-video-nouveau-1.0.12-i586-1 and install xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-noarch-1.txz
should be no reason becouse both xf86-video-nouveau-1.0.12 xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist are installed on the system, but this is OT here (personally I leave installed the 1.0.12 version and manually blacklist it).
I can use another package, as e2fsprogs, to explain the same thing.
xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist-noarch-1.txz is not a package with unconvenzional name.
it is the package xf86-video-nouveau where the version is 'blacklist'
When two packages have the same name, I expect to see two different versions of the same software. Here, this is not the case :
xf86-video-nouveau contains the nouveau video driver for X11
xf86-video-nouveau-blacklist contains a single configuration file to prevent the nouveau kernel driver from being loaded.
But As you said, this is off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerouno
I can use another package, as e2fsprogs, to explain the same thing.
Yes, a similar thing.
A tag "masked" seems to be a good idea to indicate that the package will not shown in slackpkg install/upgrade (unless you specify full name or repository name
Seeing the patch, I think (not tried) that may be also some case of "Installed (masked)".
becouse you have PKG_PRIORITY=( multilib )
If you comment it (but not remove the repository) you will have the first that is installed, but slackpkg will presents you the second when you will run slackpkg upgrade-all
Yes, a similar thing.
A tag "masked" seems to be a good idea to indicate that the package will not shown in slackpkg install/upgrade (unless you specify full name or repository name
Forget the previous patch, it does not work as it should (sorry) :
becouse you have PKG_PRIORITY=( multilib )
If you comment it (but not remove the repository) you will have the first that is installed, but slackpkg will presents you the second when you will run slackpkg upgrade-all
I don't really understand what you mean. If you comment PKGS_PRIORITY (or remove multilib from it), the glibc packages from patches will be proposed as upgrade. For instance:
With PKGS_PRIORITY=( multilib alienbob_current restricted ktown )
Code:
$ slackpkg search glibc-solibs
DONE
The list below shows all packages with name matching "glibc-solibs".
[ Status ] [ Repository ] [ Package ]
installed multilib glibc-solibs-2.17_multilib-x86_64-10alien
uninstalled (masked) patches glibc-solibs-2.17-x86_64-10_slack14.1
uninstalled (masked) slackware64 glibc-solibs-2.17-x86_64-7
Now, with PKGS_PRIORITY=( alienbob_current restricted ktown ) :
Code:
$ slackpkg search glibc-solibs
DONE
The list below shows all packages with name matching "glibc-solibs".
[ Status ] [ Repository ] [ Package ]
upgrade patches glibc-solibs-2.17_multilib-x86_64-10alien --> glibc-solibs-2.17-x86_64-10_slack14.1
uninstalled (masked) slackware64 glibc-solibs-2.17-x86_64-7
When a package is proposed as upgrade, that means the installed version is implicitly masked. Therefore, I don't think it would be great to duplicate that kind of packages in the printed list, like in the pseudo-output below :
When a package is proposed as upgrade, that means the installed version is implicitly masked
I did not think about it. Yes, it's ok.
I made some small modification, but I do not commit it now.
I sorted the output, so to group by Status.
note: I have substituted 'while read PKG' and next rows with
'while read PKGDIR PKGBASENAME PKGVER PKGARCH PKGBUILD PKGFULLNAME PKGPATH PKGEXT'
It should not add other performance but the code is more clear.
Code:
--- a/src/slackpkgplus.sh
+++ b/src/slackpkgplus.sh
@@ -913,25 +913,36 @@ if [ "$SLACKPKGPLUS" = "on" ];then
}' l_dir=${DIR} > $PKGINFOS
else # -- CMD==search
- grep ${GREPOPTS} "^${DIR}.*${SEARCHSTR}" "${TMPDIR}/pkglist" > $PKGINFOS
+ grep ${GREPOPTS} "^${DIR}.*\(/${SEARCHSTR}[/ ]\)\|\( [^/ ]*${SEARCHSTR}[^/ ]* \)" "${TMPDIR}/pkglist" > $PKGINFOS
fi
- while read PKG ; do
- PKGDATA=( $PKG ) # PKGDATA([0]=DIR,[1]=BASENMAE,[5]=FULLNAME)
+ while read PKGDIR PKGBASENAME PKGVER PKGARCH PKGBUILD PKGFULLNAME PKGPATH PKGEXT ; do
- PKGDIR=${PKGDATA[0]} # was PKGDIR=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f1 -d" ")
- PKGBASENAME=${PKGDATA[1]} # was PKGBASENAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f2 -d" ")
- PKGFULLNAME=${PKGDATA[5]} # was PKGFULLNAME=$(echo "$PKG" | cut -f6 -d" ")
+ # does nothing when the package has been handled ...
+ grep -q "^repo:${PKGDIR}:bname:${PKGBASENAME}:ver:${PKGVER}:fname:${PKGFULLNAME}:" $PKGLIST && continue
- if [[ "$PKGDIR" =~ ^SLACKPKGPLUS_ ]] ; then # was if echo "$PKGDIR" | grep -q "SLACKPKGPLUS_" ; then
- grep -q "^repository:${PKGDIR}:basename:${PKGBASENAME}:" $PKGLIST && continue
+ # When a package P' with the same basename has been handled before the current package, this means
+ # the package P' has precedence over P.
+
+ if grep -q ":bname:${PKGBASENAME}:" $PKGLIST ; then
+
+ # if the current package P is installed, this means the previous P' will be
+ # proposed as an upgrade to P. In this case, the loop must continue without
+ # any other action...
+ grep -q " $PKGFULLNAME " ${TMPDIR}/tmplist && continue
+
+ # The current package P is not installed. In this case P must be shown as
+ # being uninstalled and masked.
+ LIST="$LIST MASKED_${PKGDIR}:${PKGFULLNAME}"
else
- grep -q ":basename:${PKGBASENAME}:" $PKGLIST && continue
+ LIST="$LIST ${PKGDIR}:${PKGFULLNAME}"
fi
- LIST="$LIST ${PKGDIR}:${PKGFULLNAME}"
- echo "repository:${PKGDIR}:basename:${PKGBASENAME}:" >> $PKGLIST
+
+ echo "repo:${PKGDIR}:bname:${PKGBASENAME}:ver:${PKGVER}:fname:${PKGFULLNAME}:" >> $PKGLIST
+
done < $PKGINFOS
done
+
rm -f $PKGLIST $PKGINFOS
LIST=$(echo -e $LIST | tr \ "\n" | uniq )
@@ -975,10 +986,17 @@ if [ "$SLACKPKGPLUS" = "on" ];then
# Default is uninstalled
STATUS="uninstalled"
- # First is the package already installed?
- # Amazing what a little sleep will do
- # exclusion is so much nicer :)
- INSTPKG=$(echo "$INSTPKGS"|grep "^${BASENAME}-[^-]\+-[^-]\+-[^-]\+$")
+ if [[ $REPO =~ ^MASKED_.* ]] ; then
+ REPO=${REPO/MASKED_/}
+ STATUS="uninstalled(masked)"
+ INSTPKG=""
+ else
+ # First is the package already installed?
+ # Amazing what a little sleep will do
+ # exclusion is so much nicer :)
+ INSTPKG=$(echo "$INSTPKGS"|grep "^${BASENAME}-[^-]\+-[^-]\+-[^-]\+$")
+ fi
+
# INSTPKG is local version
if [ ! "${INSTPKG}" = "" ]; then
@@ -994,17 +1012,17 @@ if [ "$SLACKPKGPLUS" = "on" ];then
# If installed is it uptodate?
if [ "${CINSTPKG}" = "${RAWNAME}" ]; then
STATUS=" installed "
- printf " -16s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "$CINSTPKG"
+ printf " %-20s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "$CINSTPKG"
else
STATUS="upgrade"
- printf " %-16s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "$CINSTPKG --> ${RAWNAME}"
+ printf " %-20s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "$CINSTPKG --> ${RAWNAME}"
fi
fi
done
else
- printf " %-16s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "${RAWNAME}"
+ printf " %-20s %-24s %-40s \n" "$STATUS" "$REPO" "${RAWNAME}"
fi
- done
+ done|sort
} # END function searchlistEX()
Don't work greylist for slackpkg clean-system , but blacklist works fine.
The greylist has no effect when running slackpkg clean-system because of the two points below :
1. The action clean-system allows to remove packages which are not "standard" (ie. not from slackware, nor from the configured 3rd party repositories).
2. Only "standard" packages (ie. from slackware, and from the configured 3rd pary repositories) can be on the greylist.
Since I'm trying to make a slackpkg+ LTS, I'm experimenting a stable branch on github that I will use to backport the patches from devel branch and test before sync it into the master branch and release the new package.
I had a private branch on my pc for that, but I think that is a best way to pubblish it.
The stable branch has currently the three previously posted fix.
It will greylist also the installed packages, so if you have
[0-9]+_SBo
in your greylist, running slackpkg upgrade-all the packages installed (for example virtualbox-4.3.30-i486-1_SBo) with sbopkg will be not overwritten by default with virtualbox-4.3.30-i486-1_other.
If I install a my own package with installpkg, slackpkg clean-system will not uninstall it by default.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
