PPM2

[bigpup]

The thing that still bothers me about all the error messages. They are talking about a save file as if that is what you probably are using and changing it will correct the problem.

OK then what about these 3 messages that should cover everything and are generic enough when it comes to savemode?

Attached is also the relevant installmodes.sh script

Yes, I like those new error messages.

They tell you what the problem is.
Then give you suggestions on what to do to fix the problem.

The true test will come, after some time, with people using this new PPM2.
When they get one of these error messages and see how well they do correcting the problem.

I do have some concern with using a save file, downloading to /root, people will not understand adjusting the size of the save file is all they need to do.
However, newer Puppies are getting away from using save files and moving to using save folders. The save folder is limited only to the size of the partition it is on. So the partition free space is the problem, not the size of a save file.

Suggestion:
You could add to the suggested solutions a statement about save files.

Code: Select all

If using a save file. Adjusting its size may help. Adjust size by using "resize personal storage file" 

[mavrothal]

Would it be possible to add a "do not show" button to the info window.
If you clicked on that button, the next time PPM started, the info window did not appear.

What I have actually done in v1.9.6 is to provide an option to show or not configuration changes at startup (Zigbert should be totally freaking out by now )

You could add to the suggested solutions a statement about save files

I think I'll leave that for the friendly veterans of the forum

[B.K. Johnson]

@666philb
You wrote:

in tahrpup.... applying the latest update in quickpet should fix this.... might need reboot to notice change

It works now. Thanks!

B.K. Johnson
tahrpup-6.0.2 PAE, slacko-5.7, frugal install, multi OS flashdrive SYSLINUX boot, CPU-Dual E2140. 4GB RAM

[bigpup]

Could be something I am doing wrong with applying the new version.

Using V1.9.6

Now I am not getting any error messages.
Only thing I see is some info at the bottom of the Ziggy GUI, and most of it is not very accurate.

I am testing using the conditions I used earlier in testing.

I love computers. Just when you think you are smarter than they are . They prove you wrong

[mavrothal]

Now I am not getting any error messages.

So is flawless

[bigpup]

What I have actually done in v1.9.6 is to provide an option to show or not configuration changes at startup (Zigbert should be totally freaking out by now )

I like that option.
You decide if you want to see the info.

I could see the info being very useful if you have not used PPM for some time.

Zigbert. Show use some love

[bigpup]

Now I am not getting any error messages.

So is flawless

So, it is showing you error messages when it should?

[mavrothal]

Now I am not getting any error messages.

So is flawless

So, it is showing you error messages when it should?

YES.
I can not see how couldn't you if the space is not there.
Do you see anything in the status bar that says needs 50MB has 10MB and still no error? If yes start from the terminal and see if any error appears.
Just in case, remove /var/local/petget and /root/.packages/download_path

[bigpup]

After I recovered my computer from the bushes outside my open window.
That felt so good watching it go out the window.

I re-downloaded PPM V1.9.6.
removed /var/local/petget and /root/.packages/download_path.
Deleted all the other updates to PPM to get back to the version that was initially installed.
Installed the new download of PPM V1.9.6

Now it seems to be giving me error messages when it should.

I think the window toss cured it.

I kind of like the info message at start up.
Made me think about where I was going to put stuff I downloaded.
In fact, it reminded me I needed to hook the USB drive back in, that I was using to store packages I downloaded and installed.

Thanks for the hard work on this!!!!!!

[Robin2]

I'm afraid Ziggy (and many others including myself) thinks other wise.

I have glanced through the subsequent discussions in this Thread and they all seem to fall into the same category as my "complaint".

If people want to make new versions of programs they are free to do so. But the new versions should not automatically be included with updates to the underlying operating system. User's should not be forced to use new versions of programs.

...R

[666philb]

I'm afraid Ziggy (and many others including myself) thinks other wise.

I have glanced through the subsequent discussions in this Thread and they all seem to fall into the same category as my "complaint".

If people want to make new versions of programs they are free to do so. But the new versions should not automatically be included with updates to the underlying operating system. User's should not be forced to use new versions of programs.

...R

hi Robin2,

it was my decision to include it as an update, firstly because it's a vast improvement on the old PPM and secondly because tahrpup 6.0 and 6.0.2 now share the same updates and i needed to bring tahrpup 6.0 to the same level as 6.0.2 to stop things getting complicated.

most users are enjoying the update mechanisms in tahrpup, previously updating in puppyland would mean searching through a huge thread looking for specific bug fixes or burning a brand new iso.

i do respect that updates shouldn't make drastic changes, but i felt that the PPM update was both important, useful and also necessary if users of 6.0 were still going to be supported alongside the new 6.0.2 users.

[bigpup]

User's should not be forced to use new versions of programs.

I guess if they want to keep using a program that has problems and bugs in it, your statement would be correct.

Barry K was the one who controlled development of PPM and even he made changes to it over the years.
Why?
Because the changes where needed to make it more functional.

mavrothal has taken on the job of fixing what is wrong with PPM.
In the process he has added some needed features and improvements.
Puppy has evolved and changed.
The core programs need to adapt to those changes.

He at least gives you the option to make PPM work as basically as it always has.

Go to config->Options and make PPM look and operate the way you want it to.

Any good program should allow you to have options.

[mavrothal]

I'm afraid Ziggy (and many others including myself) thinks other wise.

I have glanced through the subsequent discussions in this Thread and they all seem to fall into the same category as my "complaint".

If people want to make new versions of programs they are free to do so. But the new versions should not automatically be included with updates to the underlying operating system. User's should not be forced to use new versions of programs.

I have a hard time understanding the "complains" since there is no functionality removed from the original PPM.
There is nothing that PPM was doing and PPM2 can not do in the exact same way.
Functionality has been added but nothing removed.
What may have changed is the default appearance and behaviour, but that is normal for any program that evolves.

[Robin2]

Let me try to respond to a few comments that seem to me to be related

666philb

it was my decision to include it as an update, firstly because it's a vast improvement on the old PPM and secondly because tahrpup 6.0 and 6.0.2 now share the same updates and i needed to bring tahrpup 6.0 to the same level as 6.0.2 to stop things getting complicated.

I do understand the problem of not having resources to maintain 2 different versions. However I think my preference would be to "fix" without changing.

bigpup

I guess if they want to keep using a program that has problems and bugs in it, your statement would be correct.

I see no reason why the user experience for software has to be changed to deal with a bug - unless the bug is in the UI, of course.

marothval

What may have changed is the default appearance and behaviour, but that is normal for any program that evolves.

This is the part I don't want to be changed without me agreeing to it. Improving the background behaviour is perfectly OK.

I won't say any more about this - I suspect I am in a small minority.

...R

[mavrothal]

marothval

What may have changed is the default appearance and behaviour, but that is normal for any program that evolves.

This is the part I don't want to be changed without me agreeing to it. Improving the background behaviour is perfectly OK.

I won't say any more about this - I suspect I am in a small minority.

Apparently what you really want is not the info, or the functionality or anything else but just the old Ziggy_ui, and nothing else will do.
It would appear that for your, 6 is the only number of clicks acceptable to install a package and 3, to uninstall it. Any other combination is unacceptable. And actually is more than that, is a bug!

So, specially for you, download the attached expand it make sure is executable and replace /usr/local/petget/ui_Classic with it.
Check the PPM2 configuration option to use the non-auto interface, and next time you start PPM you get the interface that apparently can not live without.

Please (you or anybody else) do not report any problems related to it. At least not here and not to me. Let's finish this story here.

[Robin2]

So, specially for you, download the attached expand it make sure is executable and replace /usr/local/petget/ui_Classic with it.

Thank you for taking some trouble on my behalf.

However this misses the point. I am not looking for special treatment for me. And I don't want to have a unique version of PPM. What I have been trying to suggest is a change in the general approach so that when bugs need to be fixed care is taken NOT to change the user experience.

And when someone has a good idea for an improved user experience that can be made available for users to select or reject as it pleases them. Changes to the user experience should not be forced on users.

...R

[mavrothal]

What I have been trying to suggest is a change in the general approach so that when bugs need to be fixed care is taken NOT to change the user experience.

And when someone has a good idea for an improved user experience that can be made available for users to select or reject as it pleases them. Changes to the user experience should not be forced on users.

You are actually wrong on both counts.
Changing (improving) the users experience is a goal of every major program version change.
But in this case, PPM2 actually went to great length not to "enforce" this improvement on anyone.

And yet for few days and several responses later you complain about the missing specific layout even if the other available layout (Classic) is the exact older one.
Try to describe, what is this dramatic difference in user experience that was "forced" upon you. That you need an extra click to install a package with the new layout if you want to have the old click-as-you-go approach? That if you use the available "Classic" layout you are using one less click to uninstall a program compared to the layout that you apparently are so attached to?
That the default UI was changed? Puppy had 2 layouts in the PPM for quite some time and some puppies had default "Classic" while others the "Ziggy". Was up to the developer to set default and up to the user to do the same for him/herself. Is exactly the same now.

So describe in detail if possible what is that famous "user experience change" that you still go on on?...

It looks to me that someone is giving you a bigger, faster, safer, more economical/ecological car and you are bitching because is the new car is a "Ferrari red" instead of the "Honda red" that you liked so much.
So take your "Honda red" and stop trying to elevate you preference to software development philosophy. Specially, a totally unfounded one.

[MochiMoppel]

What I have been trying to suggest is a change in the general approach so that when bugs need to be fixed care is taken NOT to change the user experience.

I can understand your frustration, but in this case mavrothal is the wrong address.

I don't know tahrpup too well. but if tahrpup forces you to use PPM2 then your complaint should go to 666philb. I saw his comment about PPM2 being a "vast improvement". Though the conceived level of improvement will vary depending on each user's needs and perception, PPM2 is not a bug fix. It was started as a project to add features that users allegedly had asked for and as such it made a lot of changes to the underlying code and subsequently and naturally introduced new bugs, some of which already have been fixed. More bugs might be detected and - hopefully - fixed in the current testing phase. In other words: the current PPM2 is still beta, not yet in Woof and therefore I don't understand why a still unreleased program can already make it into tahrpup - unless tharpup itself is beta.

[mavrothal]

In other words: the current PPM2 is still beta, not yet in Woof

PPM2 is RC not beta and is not in woof because I'm just too cautious. As a matter of fact if you look at thelog, minor or editorial or options things are changed since 1.9. As far as installing and removing packages the major function of a package manager, there are no bugs ie, failure to install or remove a package, since v1. Most changes since then have to do with the user experience.
This delay might have been wrong since the puppy culture is release often and fix bugs latter, because with so many pups and pupplets is impossible to get any decent testing with alphas, betas ot RCs.
I guess I'll give it another week and if nothing comes up I'll merge in woof-CE.

BTW Tahr 6.0.2 has an early version of PPM2 (1.4) and still, very few if any bugs are reported.

[ASRI éducation]

I guess I'll give it another week and if nothing comes up I'll merge in woof-CE.

Can you wait a few days?

I use momanager (version L18L), it tells me that the translation is done at 100%.
Yet, I find that some functions are not translated.
Must now I search the parts without gettext.

Regards