On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 00:18 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > 2010/2/1 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>: > > So, srcpkgcache.bin is not involved (I don't know why David mentioned > > it) and pkgcache.bin is legitimately invalidated. But still, this is a > > problem, as apt-cache will be very slow until the binary cache is > > regenerated. > I mentioned the srcpkgcache.bin as i hoped with the included description > it would become clear that srcpkgcache.bin isn't what you seem to think > it is - but don't worry, you are not the only one, we have a bugreport for > it #566275 and while i find more and more users who seems to confuse > the meaning i still don't think it is of interest enough for the "normal" user > to be included in the manpage… Someone should write an extended guide. ;) > > But again in medium-short: > > I've had this happen again, and I have an explanation. Installing a > > package directly with dpkg updates /var/lib/dpkg/status and this > > invalidates pkgcache.bin. > Is exactly why srcpkgcache.bin exists ~ to quote myself: > > srcpkgcache.bin - Cache of the /var/lib/apt/lists files > > pkgcache.bin - Cache of srcpkgcache.bin + status files > So after installing with dpkg directly (or after an install with apt) the > pkgcache.bin is invalid yes - BUT the srcpkgcache.bin is still > valid as it changes only on "apt-get update", so the srcpkgcache.bin > is reused and only the statusfile is parsed, which should happen > pretty fast as this file isn't that long compared to the Packages files in > /var/lib/apt/lists … OK, thanks for the repeated explanation. You sent it to the wrong bug report previously and I think I must not have read it fully. I wrote a program to dump the sizes and times in these cache files, and in the latest appearance of this bug they all matched the status of the text files except for /var/lib/dpkg/status. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part