2010/2/1 Ben Hutchings <b...@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 … Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen, David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
