(OLD) (ARCHIVED) Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index (OLD) (ARCHIVED) Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info

This forum can also be accessed as http://oldforum.puppylinux.com
It is now read-only and serves only as archives.

Please register over the NEW forum
https://forum.puppylinux.com
and continue your work there. Thank you.

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups    
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sun 25 Oct 2020, 01:07
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
PPM2
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 10 of 18 [262 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, ..., 16, 17, 18 Next
Author Message
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Thu 12 Mar 2015, 17:23    Post subject:  

bigpup wrote:
I think MochiMoppel is trying to point out a better way (method) to code PPM.

I think mavrothal is saying.
I spent so much time on this thing.
I am just happy to see if it works at all and is usable.
We can figure out better coding methods later.

Quote:
Here an example of what is bad when children "speak" (hopefully understandable also for non-programmers):
When petget is ready to start installation it calls installpkg.sh, then twiddles its thumbs and waits patiently for installpkg.sh to report back with a success story. It knows that when it receives an "exit 0" it means OK and it can move on to call JWM to create the menu. Meanwhile the child installpkg.sh finds that the package is already installed. The child doesn't tell the parent right away, instead it stops and holds up a fancy placard: "Hey, there is nothing to do for me. The package is already installed". It then waits until the user tell him "OK, I've read it. Now put down the placard". Unfortunately the placard was visible to the whole world, but not to the parent. At least the child sends a message to the parent: "exit 1". When the parent receives the message, it stops its thumb twiddling and reads. It doesn't say "exit 0", so something must have gone wrong. But what? The child knows 20 different checkpoints from where it should report any errors. It does, but it always reports back "exit 1", nobody taught him how to count. The parent has not much to go for, and since it doesn't even know if the child flashed a placard, it has to hold up its own placard with a message as broad as possible: "Installation failed".

From a user perspective above example is a bad experience. The user receives 2 dialogs. The first one is pretty accurate and tells him not to worry. After all it should be good news that the installation is already done. Then immediately after that he sees a second message telling him that the installation "failed". Wouldn't it be so much better if he gets only one message? Would all 20 "exit 1" errors be properly numbered, petget would know what went wrong and issue a meaningful message. From a developer perspective it would mean less code in the child scripts, easier maintenance and with individual exit codes - I don't have to tell you that - much easier debugging.


Let me repeat what I said before.
Please try to use the final version of PPM2.
The example quoted simple does not happen!!!

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Jasper

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 1350
Location: England

PostPosted: Thu 12 Mar 2015, 19:30    Post subject:  

Hi guys,

The message I published was not merely deficient in punctuation and spelling it was so poorly written as to be unintelligible, even misleading. Please read it again - very carefully.

I suggest it is redrafted and whilst I may not understand the intended meaning - if it has to always cover every possible outcome (simple or complex) I proffer the screen shot as a starter.

Words such as automatically and simultaneously should be read and used with care and whilst bigpup has understood exactly what I meant, he is incorrect in assuming what I wanted.

My regards
Shot(1).png
 Description   
 Filesize   20.81 KB
 Viewed   471 Time(s)

Shot(1).png

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 13981
Location: S.C. USA

PostPosted: Thu 12 Mar 2015, 21:56    Post subject:  

Quote:
Please try to use the final version of PPM2

OK.
I am confused.
Is the ppm_auto-2.pet in the first post the one you are talking about?

We no longer have a PPM2 that shows as V2?

Not sure if you know about this,

I am not sure if you added this as part of the ppm_auto-2.pet or it got added by Tahrpup updates.

In Tahrpup, when you run the Tahrpup updates, it adds the clear search field button in PPM.
So, this becomes part of PPM.

Seems to be working OK.

_________________
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
YaPI(any iso installer)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moat


Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 968
Location: Mid-mitten

PostPosted: Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:03    Post subject:  

Jasper wrote:
The message I published was not merely deficient in punctuation and spelling it was so poorly written as to be unintelligible, even misleading.


Agreed - the (mis)use of the english language in that posted statement is so poor as to be... almost... amusing! Smile It makes no sense, at all.

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 01:47    Post subject:  

bigpup,
what is in the first post is what is in woof-CE.
Phil is using an additional option he requested and I provide it, that is not included in woof-CE. I do not know if there are other changes in his version.
What I pointed out is that what MM was referring to and you quoted, was already changed few days back.
Jasper
Thanks. Now is clear what you were referring to (classifying this as a "bug" made it particularly difficult for me to understand since I was looking for functional issues that bugs usually imply).
If you find the opportunity you may want to reinstall and take a look at the install "view details" window and suggest analogous changes.
BTW "Listing of uninstalled dependencies still needed" is the wrong message and it would actually be a real bug if true and indeed PPM was removing needed packages.
The message suppose to suggest "Listing of installed dependencies that you may not need anymore"
Jasper, Moat (others)
I'm actually surprised that 4 months now no one offered any specific suggestions on wording, as English is neither mine nor Zigbert's native language (not to mention that the code rather than the message was our focus).
Text messages are also very easy to correct in the code without affecting any functions, other than your amusement, so I would be happy to incorporate them. The only concern should be to fit nicely in the available space and not be too wordy (which is particularly difficult for non english majors).

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Jasper

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 1350
Location: England

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 05:36    Post subject:  

Hi mavrothal,

Re:
Quote:
Listing of installed dependencies that you may not need anymore


Say, this morning I have used the ppm to install a particular pet and all its say, 101 necessary dependencies.

Now, within hours, I do not like that pet and during the process of uninstalling it I see your note about dependencies.

Presumably your note means:

(1) none of the 101 dependencies will have been uninstalled
or
(2) some of the 101 may, or may not, have uninstalled
and
(3) all/any of those 101 that remain be will listed individually
or
(4) as per (3) above plus any unneeded history will be listed
----------------------------
or
(5) if none of the above - in what circumstance(s) might that message be populated with names of dependencies (or whatever)?
Also, to run everything that remains - dependencies either are needed (or they are not needed) - so how is the word "may" applicable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 06:12    Post subject:  

Jasper wrote:
Hi mavrothal,

Re:
Quote:
Listing of installed dependencies that you may not need anymore


Say, this morning I have used the ppm to install a particular pet and all its say, 101 necessary dependencies.

Now, within hours, I do not like that pet and during the process of uninstalling it I see your note about dependencies.

Presumably your note means:

(1) none of the 101 dependencies will have been uninstalled
or
(2) some of the 101 may, or may not, have uninstalled
and
(3) all/any of those 101 that remain be will listed individually
or
(4) as per (3) above plus any unneeded history will be listed
----------------------------
or
(5) if none of the above - in what circumstance(s) might that message be populated with names of dependencies (or whatever)?
Also, to run everything that remains - dependencies either are needed (or they are not needed) - so how is the word "may" applicable?


When you uninstall a specific program, PPM (and all package managers I know of) uninstall only this program and none of its dependencies, as there is no way to know the context within which the dependencies were installed or if you may be installing something related next.
However, what PPM does during the removal process is to query the dependencies of the package you are about to remove, examine if any user-installed packages belong to those dependencies and suggest their removal if no other installed package has them as dependencies.
So ideally all 101 dependencies should have been listed under
Quote:
Listing of installed dependencies that you may not need anymore

However, PPM goes only one step deep, so will only suggest the removal of the immediate dependencies of the removed package. When you try remove those you'll probably be prompted to remove their dependencies and so on.
Is not very efficient/effective but is a lot safer, given the quality of puppy packages (Rolling Eyes) and the variety of the puppy sources, as they may not cite dependencies correctly, or with the correct package name or even at all.

Regarding the use of "may", as mentioned above PPM looks only at user-installed packages assuming that whatever is in the SFS is all fine. However, we all now you may need to install a package from the binary compatible repo for example (ie Ubuntu/Slackware) or maybe a newer pet version, for a program already in the main SFS, to work correctly. PPM can not check for this.
And as we said before not all packages list their dependencies properly if at all. Thus, "may".

After all these, the sort answer to your questions is (1).

BTW In cases like the one with the 101 dependencies the safest way is to remove the previous 101 packages in the list as packages in the remove window are listed with their installation order.

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 2084
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 08:12    Post subject:  

Hopeless.

@ASRI
Regarding your opinion "For most users, the use of PPM with silent mode seems risky". Please keep in mind that I didn't suggest to implement this. Mavrothal asked me to specify my concerns and I gave an example where his changes can cause unnecessary trouble. It is moot to debate about a feature that I personally use, but which officially does not exist and is not on the agenda. Nevertheless since you voiced your opinion, let me add mine:

As far as the risk is concerned I can't agree. You did this yourself and I'm sure you knew what you were doing. Having to install the same pets, which are locally saved, which you have examined and which you trust, over and over again is no fun. That's why I implemented this - as an option and not as default! Most users will not need this anyway. But what I fail to understand is why the new ppm2 would be considered to be less risky. In ppm2 you are offered the option to install multiple packages, packages that you have never used or tested before, "simultaneously" without further interaction ("one-click") . Looks pretty silent to me - and very risky. Where is the difference? The horror scenario mavrothal pictured, the pet from hell that runs a mean preinstall script, this scenario is much more likely with untested pets installed via ppm than with local pets which you can inspect and run in confidence. I can agree here in one point: The immediate execution of included pre/postinstall scripts is a huge security risk and I'm surprised that for this action no confirmation dialog exists. It does not matter if you install a pet silently, "automatic" or in old fashioned classic mode: If a pet contains a preinstall script that wipes your hard disc there is not much you can do about it.

@bigpup
Nobody wants to reduce information. I only object to giving the same message to the user twice because I don't believe that the quality of information a user gets has anything to do with the number of messages he receives. Probably you are referring to the new little console window with the fast junk output. I agree that it is comforting to see that the computer is busy and not dead, and that's probably the sole purpose, but information? Not for me. The progress bar at the bottom is much nicer.

Concerning the example I gave and which mavrothal was quick to denounced as "does not happen !!!" you can test yourself if you like: Open a text terminal (on my machine it's Ctrl+Alt+F2, ID:root, password:woofwoof), enter petget path/to/foo.pet and enjoy a fancy installation. When it's finished, run the same command again and watch for the last 2 messages. Depending on your final version messages may time out, but you still get 2 when you should see only 1. And yes, it's a coding proposal and something that can wait, but judging from the reaction I received I don't think that time is the decisive bottleneck here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 08:42    Post subject:  

MochiMoppel wrote:
Hopeless.

I agree

But why are we really discussing this in an open source project.
The code is out there and you are totally capable to write code.
Instead of trying to tell me what I'm doing wrong, do what you consider right and put it out there for the people and the puppy builders to use (I'm sure I'll find several things I'll like and "steal")

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
michaellowe


Joined: 17 Dec 2011
Posts: 69
Location: The Garden

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 17:12    Post subject: PPM seems faulty in P 525 and Prec 5.7 and other oddities  

PPM seem to be broken in Puppy 525 and Precise 5.7
Never used to be, used to work fine, dont know what happened?
Sorry I know this might have nothing to do with the aforementioned discussion but it has everything to do with PPM and how it doesn't seem to work properly.
in fact I very rarely use it anymore. I just compile from source, much better, much more reliable.
Why not release a Puppy without a PPM, call it PupCom, would certainly make for a much neater minimalistic menu?
Unfortunuately my compiling knowledge and experience is limited to
./config
make
make install
and I'm happy with that for now as it seems to do the job.

I wish I knew how to get rid of all the menu entries that I never use and probably never will use? just seems such a waste of desktop space and more than anything a waste of time trawling through them each time I want to access an app. have been trying out macpup 599 recently and although the desktop is probably just up my street its going to take a lot of getting used to as I have gotten so comfortable with my good old favourite puppy 525 the first linux distro I was ever introduced to and will probably always love, however not always Wine friendly! how to use wine as non root???? something else I tried and failed at miserably! anyway rambling on PPM would be great if it actually worked? my big question is why does it continue to download and install all the reps when I specifically select only a few? that to me seems flawed, why put a selection of reps when PPM will always just download all of them regardless of the choice I have just made????

_________________
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue.....
well thats at least how some of us deal with ba$h !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 13981
Location: S.C. USA

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2015, 21:14    Post subject: Re: PPM seems faulty in P 525 and Prec 5.7 and other oddities  

michaellowe wrote:
PPM seem to be broken in Puppy 525 and Precise 5.7
Never used to be, used to work fine, dont know what appened?

This is no information, at all, to understand what your problem is Shocked

Specific details of what you feel is broken?
You do what?
You see what?

Quote:
rambling on PPM would be great if it actually worked? my big question is why does it continue to download and install all the reps when I specifically select only a few? that to me seems flawed, why put a selection of reps when PPM will always just download all of them regardless of the choice I have just made????

If you are talking about the repo update.
You should be getting an option for each one to update or not.

_________________
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
YaPI(any iso installer)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rg66


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

PostPosted: Wed 18 Mar 2015, 06:03    Post subject:  

Nice job on ppm2 Mavrothal

If I change to classic mode from the dropdown list it keeps using ziggy but always defaults to auto. If I check traditional in config > options it uses classic Crying or Very sad . Is there anyway to use "traditional mode" with ziggy interface or have last choice as default from dropdown list? Just a personal opinion that ui_classic shouldn't even be used.

TIA

_________________
X-slacko-5b1 - X-tahr-2.0 - X-precise-2.4
X-series repo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Wed 18 Mar 2015, 06:27    Post subject:  

rg66 wrote:
If I change to classic mode from the dropdown list it keeps using ziggy but always defaults to auto. If I check traditional in config > options it uses classic Crying or Very sad . Is there anyway to use "traditional mode" with ziggy interface or have last choice as default from dropdown list? Just a personal opinion that ui_classic shouldn't even be used.


There are several more options that I have tried and latter revered since the options list was becoming ridiculously long and mostly confusing. Twisted Evil

One of them is a config option to set step-by-step as default
Another is to be able to set either classic or the old Ziggy UI in the "traditional" mode.

These patches (and some more) are reverted but you can apply any of the 2 if want in your X-puppies. Be advised that they are tested only briefly though.

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rg66


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

PostPosted: Wed 18 Mar 2015, 06:41    Post subject:  

Thanks Mav, I'll have a look at those patches. Ultimately, I'd like it to default to last used and remove "traditional" from options but editing ppm scripts is a nightmare!
_________________
X-slacko-5b1 - X-tahr-2.0 - X-precise-2.4
X-series repo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3108

PostPosted: Wed 18 Mar 2015, 07:09    Post subject:  

rg66 wrote:
Thanks Mav, I'll have a look at those patches. Ultimately, I'd like it to default to last used and remove "traditional" from options but editing ppm scripts is a nightmare!

Yes it is Rolling Eyes

Removing traditional is fairly easy.
Delete lines 388-392 from pkg_chooser.sh, lines 173-178 from configure.sh and the ui_Classic file.

Using the last mode used should also not be very difficult. Should be analogous to "Option to set default mode." patch mentioned above but make it a case instead if you want any of the 4 options to be the default on next start. The way the mode is preserved between installs in the clean_up function of the installmodes.sh script may be helpful.
I personally do not like the idea since I think that a package manager should default to its main function ie to install packages, but please post a patch here if you find the time to get to it Wink

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 10 of 18 [262 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, ..., 16, 17, 18 Next
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0960s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0245s) ][ GZIP on ]