Re: Question about how "aptitude search" is used
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:45:22AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario <email@example.com> was heard to say:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:17:55PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > Did aptitude work on this system in past Debian releases?
> I use aptitude rarely and only for command-line tests (downloads,
> simulate installs, compartation with the dependencies-resolving results
> with apt-get. _Never_ for installing).
> But I can say that with the transitions woody ---> sarge ---> etch it has
> become slower and slower (quite a lot solwer on my old hardware).
> > The only real
> > memory-hogging change in the program I can think of is the switch to
> > Unicode a few years ago;
> Is it possible to locally recompile aptitude without such support, for
> testing pourposes?
You could fetch a version from oldstable (0.2.whatever) and compile it.
It might take a little hacking since the C++ toolchain and apt have changed
since then. You can't compile a current version without this support,
because the change touched more or less the whole program as well as
what later became cwidget; it's not just a matter of changing a few
lines to go back.
If you only run from the command-line it's almost certainly not the
Unicode stuff that's biting you: aptitude hardly carries any strings at
all around in memory in that mode.
> > like the increase in the number of packages in the archive and changes in
> > the toolchain and standard library
> I suspect that these three reasons are mostly responsable for sloweness
> (of aptitude and of other packages).
Personally, I bet that much of the increase in memory usage can be
traced to the increase in the number of packages. Can you maybe try
cutting down on the number of packages (e.g., by pointing sources.list
at oldstable temporarily) and see if that speeds things up?
> Is it possible to compile (for testing pourposes) the current aptitude
> with dietlibc or uclibc ? With older compilers ? (I recall that some
> time ago there were somewere in the net a recompilation of a not big but
> good and self-supporting part of woody with dietlibc, with only few
> patches to the source packages)
I have no idea.