PackMan package manager 0.9.2 beta released
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
PackMan version 0.9.2 beta is now available. The main reason for this release is to allow PackMan to filter the lists This will need package authors to update their packages with this information It also allows package authors to release multiple versions of a package of Package Maintainers, please add the new Enviroment field when you create a Also in this version: - Packages can include a Homepage field to give a link to more information If you already have a previous version of !PackMan or !RiscPkg The latest versions of PackMan are now distributed via the ROOL packaging Otherwise go to https://sites.google.com/site/alansriscosstuff/packman PackMan is a package manager front end for packages distributed Its features include: - Summary and detailed description of the packages PackMan is open source software and it’s source code is on GitHub. System requirements RISC OS 4.0 or greater with long filenames The normal RISC OS Packaging project policy manual has not been |
Stuart Painting (5389) 712 posts |
I’m not sure if this was meant to happen, but… After upgrading to PackMan 0.9.2, the list of packages no longer mentions PackMan itself. There’s a completely blank line (apart from the “question mark” icon) where the entry for PackMan ought to be. I added the URL http://packages.riscosopen.org/packages/pkg/programs-armv5 as requested, but to no avail (on further checking I already had that URL under its “raspberrypi” alias). (Raspberry Pi 3B+, RISC OS 5.26) |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
Re – blank PackMan entry in PackMan I’ve tried this now and seem to get the same result on my Raspberry Pi 3. I can’t see a reason for it. Can you just tell me the date that Help,Info…shows? Can you try closing PackMan, restarting it and then running Update Lists again? This fixed it for me. I’d be interested if it does for you. If it doesn’t can you email me on my address in the PackMan help file and I’ll probably ask for a few files off your machine. |
Andrew McCarthy (3688) 605 posts |
The first time I upgraded I didn’t see this, but PackMan did install to Apps.Packman rather than where it was being run from Apps.Admin.PackMan. The second time from a different SD card I triggered the blank line by updating the list whilst still running the old version, then switching to the new version the blank line could be seen. The blank line disappeared on refreshing the list with the new version. Has anyone else experienced the new version of Packman installing to Apps.Packman versus where it was placed and run from? |
Stuart Painting (5389) 712 posts |
Nope, didn’t work. Going to email… |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2165 posts |
I have a few blank lines on my machine too. There was one right at the top of the list, but doing an Update Lists and restarting got rid of it. The others are:
I didn’t run into the ‘Admin’ issue mentioned above, but my PackMan was always directly in Apps. I’m on a Pi 3 with OS 5.24. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
I’ve now uploaded a fixed version 0.9.3 that should remove the disappearing PackMan problem. If you have install 0.9.2, you can fix your install by updating the lists and then selecting Upgrade All. If PackMan 0.9.3 is available it should appear and you can then upgrade to it. After closing and re-opening PackMan it should appear in the package lists as expected. |
Stuart Painting (5389) 712 posts |
0.9.3 installed and working. Thanks for fixing the bug! |
David R. Lane (77) 766 posts |
On an ARMX6, I can report the same gaps as Chris Mahoney. After closing Packman and rebooting it I got different gaps, but it is behaving oddly in other ways. With both filters at “all”, the list claims that I Have downloaded every item in the list and they are all up to date, except of course the gaps. There seems to be a lot missing in the list, apart from the ‘gaps’, items that I don’t download. |
David Pitt (3386) 1248 posts |
I downloaded PackMan 0.9.3 from Alan’s site because of the blank line. On restarting Packman now at 0.9.3 the list reported it as still being 0.9.2 offering the upgrade, with dependency SharedULib 0.14. I upgraded, PackMan looks to have gone into the specified location but there was an empty Apps.Admin directory and it overwrote my SharedULib 0.15 with 0.14. I thought it was supposed to not overwrite in this case. Having retrieved SharedULib 0.15 PackMan reported 0.14 present with 0.15 available, I installed that to correct the reported status only to find 0.14 was back again but PackMan is reporting 0.15 as present. 0.15 has been retrieved for a second time. And :- Time: Sun Mar 8 20:31:30 2020 Location: Application space Current Wimp task: Package Manager Last app to start: Filer_Action R0 = 00000000 R1 = d0014ee2 R2 = 00000000 R3 = 00000000 R4 = 004fa818 R5 = 00000000 R6 = 0040ad44 R7 = 004fa890 R8 = 0000000b R9 = 00402300 R10 = 0040a208 R11 = 0040ad40 R12 = 0040accc R13 = 0040ad18 R14 = 000db3b0 R15 = 0004a71c DFAR = 00000004 Mode USR32 Flags nZCv if PSR = 60000010 0004a6d4 : e2800068 : ADD R0,R0,#&68 ; ="h" 0004a6d8 : e1a01005 : MOV R1,R5 0004a6dc : eb02435c : BL &000DB454 0004a6e0 : e2847078 : ADD R7,R4,#&78 ; ="x" 0004a6e4 : e2840070 : ADD R0,R4,#&70 ; ="p" 0004a6e8 : e1a01005 : MOV R1,R5 0004a6ec : eb024358 : BL &000DB454 0004a6f0 : e1a00007 : MOV R0,R7 0004a6f4 : e1a01005 : MOV R1,R5 0004a6f8 : eb024355 : BL &000DB454 0004a6fc : e3550000 : CMP R5,#0 0004a700 : 1affffed : BNE &0004A6BC 0004a704 : e5962008 : LDR R2,[R6,#8] 0004a708 : e594308c : LDR R3,[R4,#140] 0004a70c : e5922014 : LDR R2,[R2,#20] 0004a710 : e0833182 : ADD R3,R3,R2,LSL #3 0004a714 * e5d31004 * LDRB R1,[R3,#4] 0004a718 : e59f2088 : LDR R2,&0004A7A8 0004a71c : e59f3088 : LDR R3,&0004A7AC 0004a720 : e3510000 : CMP R1,#0 0004a724 : 01a01002 : MOVEQ R1,R2 0004a728 : 11a01003 : MOVNE R1,R3 0004a72c : e28d2008 : ADD R2,R13,#8 0004a730 : e28d0004 : ADD R0,R13,#4 0004a734 : eb016da4 : BL &000A5DCC 0004a738 : e1a00007 : MOV R0,R7 0004a73c : e3a01080 : MOV R1,#&80 ; ="Ä" 0004a740 : e28d2004 : ADD R2,R13,#4 0004a744 : eb01cdcc : BL &000BDE7C 0004a748 : e59d5004 : LDR R5,[R13,#4] 0004a74c : e59f305c : LDR R3,&0004A7B0 0004a750 : e245500c : SUB R5,R5,#&0C ; =12 R15 = 0004a71c = +4271c in application memory = _ZN13SourcesWindow20scrolllist_selectionERKN3tbx24ScrollListSelectionEventE +94 R14_usr = 000db3b0 = +d33b0 in application memory = _ZN3tbx6Gadget10clear_flagEj +90 Function call to 00334c9c = +32cc9c in application memory = _kernel_swi +0 |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
If you already had a version of PackMan installed it will update it to the previous install location. You can use the Move option in the Components, View menu to tell PackMan it’s new location (it may prompt for a backup during this process) |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
David Lane – have you tried upgrade to 0.9.3 as mention above. Once you have please close PackMan, re-open it and do an update lists. Does this get rid of the Gaps? |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
David Pitt – I didn’t even know there was a SharedULib 0.15, there’s not a package for it. Where did it come from? Having said that PackMan isn’t supposed to be overwriting modules with a higher number anyway. What machine/version of RISC OS are you using? The crash seems to be in the Advanced, Sources window – Is that correct? If so had you just clicked on an entry? |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2165 posts |
I’ve updated PackMan to 0.9.3 and the blanks have gone away. When I did the update it also installed CaCertificates and a couple of other packages, and I think these are the ones that were coming up blank. However, another issue. I’ve produced new versions of my packages with the Environment value specified. I only have two packages: Seasonal and Uptime. Seasonal was not actually installed on my system, and the ‘?’ icon disappeared from PackMan and all looks well. Uptime, on the other hand, was already installed, and the ‘?’ was still present. If I opened the Information window, the Environment wasn’t listed and the Standards version was still listed as 0.5.0 despite being 0.6.0 in the latest package. The package URL was also blank. After using PackMan to install the latest version the ‘?’ went away, the Standards version is now showing as 0.6.0, and the URL is listed. It appears that locally-installed packages may be overriding part of the data from the server. |
David Pitt (3386) 1248 posts |
It comes from a home built gcc. *Help SharedUnixLibrary ==> Help on keyword SharedUnixLibrary Module is: SharedUnixLibrary 1.15 (10 Feb 2019) (C) UnixLib Developers, 2001-2019
It doesn’t, usually, so this occurrence was unexpected.
Platform : Titanium *FX0 RISC OS 5.27 (07 Mar 2020)
Probably. The catch is that ZeroPain logs appear silently on a covered filer window so are not instantly obvious. I cannot reproduce the pain now. Now I have a blank line in PackMan’s main window where the SharedUnixLibrary should be and this file in Cache |
David Pitt (3386) 1248 posts |
I have now completely deleted and then reinstalled PackMan with no issues at all. PackMan knows where it is and there was no SharedUnixLibrary clash. It was then necessary to reinstate my previous PackMan installs, all one of them, so that the new PackMan installation knows about it. DirSync downloaded and a backup was made of the version already present. I don’t know what was causing the earlier bother, but it did get worse. A zero length file called – was found in Cache, after deleting it PackMan seemed not be able to find !Packages and was asking to install that. PackMan was quit hoping to restart it but it would not saying PackMan was already running, which it was, it was in the TaskManager but was not on the iconbar. At this point it all seemed too bizarre so I did the only decent thing and started again from scratch. |
Jon Abbott (1421) 2641 posts |
Dilemma…do I flag 26bit games as arm26 or arm as they’re being fixed at runtime? Second problem is how to update hundreds of packages without creating a version bump and hundreds of unnecessary package updates? The third problem is how to get the Environment value into the packages in the first place. I might have to continue this via eMail as the CSV used to generate the packages does contain a column for ARMv5 compatibility (Y=32 bit, F=26 bit fixed at runtime), so it might need a tweak to the packaging tool you coded for me. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
David Pitt – sorry about the trouble you’ve had. I’m glad you’re up and running now. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
Chris Mahony – I’ll have to try to reproduce your problem here. I think you’ve given me enough information for me to try. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
Jon,
I would flag them as arm, but make sure they have a dependency on ADFFS if they need it to run on 32 bit systems. It’s what they run on that’s important and if that requires another module then as long as that’s set as a dependency that’s fine. You’re other questions we are probably better taking to email. It sounds like you have a column that can be used to calculate the environment. I can’t remember what causes version bumps at the moment, but we may be able to get away with just creating a new package with the same version number, but with the environment set. |
David R. Lane (77) 766 posts |
I am now running version 0.9.3; but, with both filters on “all” in the Packman window, every line has a green tick! So, according to Packman, I have installed every available package! I never installed everything on the list, and looking at it, it seems it is lisitng only stuff I have installed. It would help to know whether the list of available packages can be seen somewhere to confirm this. Update Lists doesn’t make any difference to what I am seeing. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
It looks like it’s not downloading anything from the package lists. Can you go into the sources menu option and check that it includes the places you expect? On the Advanced menu their is a View Log button, select that once to turn on logging, then do an update lists and it should show what it is trying. If the problem isn’t obvious from that send me the log file to my email address in PackMan and I’ll have a look at it. |
Chris Johnson (125) 825 posts |
Have had an installation of Packman for a good while and found it to work reliably for the few packages I used it for. I have tried to get Packman to update correctly and completely failed this evening. Upgrading failed in the same way as others have already noted. This was on an ARMX6. I had an installed but never used version of 0.9.1 on the Titanium. This also failed to update. I downloaded the latest version (0.9.3) direct and made a completely clean installation on the ARMX6, removing all the existing !Packages resource and all choices files before starting. Ran that, which first installed the default !Packages in to Boot:Resources. Attempting to update the lists fetches nothing (the update window appears for what must be a few centisecs before showing done) and the lists still show just Packman itself. There seems to be a problem with actually fetching new lists, since all attempts on both machines gave an immediate ‘Done’ but nothing new appears. The sources file looks ok. I will try tomorrow with logging active. |
David R. Lane (77) 766 posts |
I found that the uncommented lines in the the Sources file were not the same as on my Pandaboard: The line ending armv7 was missing from the ARMX6 and present on the Pandaboard running Packman version 0.9.1. On the other hand, the line ending thirdparty wass present on the ARMX6, but missing from the Pandaboard. I copied in the line ending armv7 to Packman version 0.9.2 sources file running on the ARMX6. This didn’t make any difference even after a re-boot. I can confirm what Chris Johnson experienced that nothing seems to happen when you do an “update lists”. I turned logging on, clicked on ‘update lists’ and below is the saved out file. Time Code Description15:00:53 30000 Reading list of sources from disc Comment: The time is out by about 2 hours, 2 hours ahead, and the column headings and code column were not there in the “Log Viewer” window. |
Alan Buckley (167) 232 posts |
I turned logging on, clicked on ‘update lists’ and below is the saved out file. The log is showing that it’s not finding downloading any sources. Can you send me the Sources file from your !Boot.Choices.PackMan file? What timezone are you in? Could the times be UTC? Also check your time in RISC OS is correct. |