Talk:Pacman/Tips and tricks
pacman-optimize on SSD
pacman-optimize only tries to reduce fragmentation of the files right? If that is the case perhaps we should include a note that this probably won't help much on an SSD. —This unsigned comment is by F4hy (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Should the wiki no longer recommend this package? -- I'm guessing it shouldn't.
Also, is pacman-optimize less important than in the past? -- I am genuinely unsure about this.
- The maintenance of AUR has nothing to do with that of itself, it is packaged separately and even in the AUR. Anyway, I'd keep the section until pacman-optimize is removed from .
- The reasons why it is not very important nowadays are improvements in pacman itself (mentioned in the ML post linked above), increased speeds of HDDs and the advent of SSDs.
- -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Pacman/Tips_and_tricks#aria2 doesn't work without leading slash, i.e.
-d / turning file names to
//var/cache/.... The article mentions this, but it doesn't mention why. -- Alad (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- You would have to go way back to track this. It seems to have worked without
-d /even in 2006: , .
I guess that simply nobody asked the right question...-- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, it does not work without
-d /. Then the problem must be on aria's side, which expects a file name for the
-ooption, which is then catenated with
-dinto the full path. Assuming that
-ddefaults to the cwd,
/var/cache/would appear twice in the result. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I still think we should warn people not to symlink /var or anything under it. It leaves the whole system unusable because if the cache disappears during a pacman transaction, you're left with missing /usr/lib libraries, and nothing works, including pacman itself. This is a serious enough problem that it can take hours to figure out how to recover. If the wiki had mentioned this problem it would have saved me a lot of time and effort, and I'm not the only one who has run in to this. It is not, however, considered a bug. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50298. JimRees (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- This revisions says that: . But to make it more clear:  -- Rdeckard (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background information. I was not aware of the bug report and now clearly understand why you altered the section the way you did. I hope the recent change is sufficient for you. Since every misbehaving program might leave a system unbootable if it plays a role in the boot process, it should be unnecessary to add this redundant information. However the problem you described is still severe and I hope you agree that the recent edits made to the article do the topic justice. Thanks for clarifying the topic and adding this to the article and sorry for reverting your edits at first. -- Edh (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)