On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> If you want to have that level of control, why don't you just check it >> manually? Use --download-only with apt-get (no dpkg locking this way) >> and when it's done, use apt-get without it to install the packages after >> making sure that there is no dpkg active anymore. > > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill > and this can be relaxed.
As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), when you do, say, an "apt-get upgrade", apt prepares an upgrade "plan" that uses a given set of packages. If apt wouldn't lock and parallel to that you do an "apt-get install", for example, the original "plan" might not be valid anymore (e.g., new "Breaks" or "Conflicts" were introduced). So a new plan would have to be created, the user would have to be asked for confirmation again. Doesn't sound that great. > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same > problem: aptitude itself can be improved so that it is able to > download and unpack in parallel. If it were doing this then the lock > would be justified. As far as I know, apt-get already downloads in parallel. Not sure about aptitude. Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTim31Hson4sEw-zVtkowQmyhkFAu=a+ummoem...@mail.gmail.com
