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?
In my experience larger packages (in terms of file space requirements) install slower, but download speed is a factor there too.
Cancelling compilation is safe to my knowledge. No changes were made as you stated. Just remember that the downloaded files will probably still be in your cache afterwards, so you may want to remove that with paccache.
You mention "partial installs," but the actual issue is partial upgrades. A partial upgrade is when you don't upgrade the entire system, but only one or more packages. A partial install isn't really a term people use, but could probably refer to installing a package without its dependencies being installed.
Ya you're right I am thinking "partial upgrade"; I just thought the concept might generalize.
I guess the worst that could happen with a partial install would be some deps installed in the system but then not actually required.