Some packages install in under a minute, while alternatives which seem functionally similar, take hours.

Sometimes there are several available options to fit a use case and I would like to use it now. Is it possible to anticipate which one will likely be the fastest to get rolling?

Generally I like to install via yay.

Searching around here is what I learned. Agree?:

  • AUR will be slower
  • Certain categories of package, like web browser, are inherently slow
  • Selecting -bin will be faster if available

Is there some way to guess beyond that? Certain programing languages take longer than others? Is it in relationship to existing packages on the system? Other characteristic? Some kind of dry-run feature to estimate?

Obviously I don’t have the fastest computer. I have added MAKEFLAGS="-j4" to /etc/makepkg.conf so at least all 4 cores can get used.

Once I realize a package is going to take ages to get ready, is it possible to safely intervene to stop the process? I try to avoid it because in general I understand arch-based distros don’t like “partial” installs. But is it safe to stop compiling? No changes have yet been made, right?

  • EddyBot@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    4 months ago

    Once I realize a package is going to take ages to get ready, is it possible to safely intervene to stop the process? I try to avoid it because in general I understand arch-based distros don’t like “partial” installs. But is it safe to stop compiling? No changes have yet been made, right?

    AUR helper do that user friendly, just cancel the process with CTRL-C
    the package gets installed only at the END of the compilation

    compiling manually (no PKGBUILD or AUR helper) will be different, especially if don’t build a package first
    things like make install usually don’t and can leave a mess