lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset <jpxsat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan:

2011/2/18 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/18/2011 12:02 PM, Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset wrote:
>
> > So, according to you it doesn't affect that each time a package is
> > installed or uninstalled the system tries to find something and
> > fails:
>
> Correct... however, I do not think it's primarily my role to say what it
> affects -- because I am not the person reporting the bug :)  What do
> *you* think it affects?  That is what I am asking you about.
>
> You are the one suggesting that you have found a bug in debconf;
> therefore, I'm asking you for clear information about why displaying a
> warning message is a bug -- what specific impact does it have for you
> (the bug reporter) that makes you think it is a bug?
>
> Personally, I have seen the same warning message in other (non-Lubuntu)
> circumstances, and it has never been a problem for me.  Therefore, I
> currently believe it to be normal standard expected "works-as-designed"
> debconf behaviour, and I do not think it has a significant performance
> impact.  But, I'm not the one reporting this as a bug :)
>
> There may be ways to avoid the warning by reconfiguring debconf, have
> you explored using
>
>  sudo dpkg-reconfigure debconf
>
> to suit your needs?  Or, if that does not help, starting upgrade-manager
> using something like:
>
>  DEBIAN_FRONTEND=dialog update-manager
>
> or possibly even
>
>  export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=dialog ; update-manager
>
> to explicitly set the desired front end?  One or both ought to work to
> avoid this warning, if I am guessing correctly :)
>
> > this is a process that sure last less than a second... but Lubuntu
> > is for old-spec hardware, so "here", "less than a second" can be a
> > second for "other person" with older hardware (and multiplied for
> > each package you're un/installing...).
>
> OK.  Have you run strace to see how much "less than a second" checking
> for the presence of libgnome-perl takes, or what system resources are
> used to make that check and output the warning message?  Have you read
> the debconf sources to see exactly what the code does to perform the
> check, and estimated that what it does when it makes that check will
> cause performance issues on older hardware?  Have you installed say 200
> packages under GNOME, timing how long it takes, and then repeated the
> same install of the same 200 packages under Lubuntu on the same
> hardware, and found that Lubuntu is significantly slower doing that
> install?
>
> If not, then what makes you think that it has a noticeable performance
> impact for you -- you are the bug reporter; please provide the info that
> makes you think this (checking for ability to use some Perl code from
> libgnome2-perl, and then emitting a text warning in a debug window that
> is usually hidden) is causing a problem for you, and so is a bug.
>
> In case it helps you as you look into this, the code concerned is in
> Debconf/FrontEnd/Gnome.pm and reads:
>
>    eval q{
>        use Gtk2;
>        use Gnome2;
>    };
>    die "Unable to load Gnome -- is libgnome2-perl installed?\n" if $@;
>
> So debconf is loading its Gnome front end module, which tests whether it
> has the Perl stuff it needs, finds out it doesn't, and quits, causing
> the front end selector to fall back to the Dialog front end.  I don't
> see an obvious major performance issue there, but only some real world
> testing will find out for sure.
>
> I am suspicious that the "fault" here, if any, could be that
> update-manager runs debconf specifying the gnome frontend by default.
>
> Do you still see the issue if you invoke update-manager as
>
>  DEBIAN_FRONTEND=dialog update-manager
>
> > And so, everybody here knows that Lubuntu doesn't include Gnome...
> > that's why a call for something gnome-called looks bad.
>
> It's not even visible to 98% (a guess, I have no evidence what the
> percentage really is) of users -- all the users who don't play with the
> Details button when running update-manager.
>
> > The process automatically falls back to the frontend "dialog"... i'm
> > just saying that if it's possible, this should be done by default in
> > Lubuntu.
>
> I'd think that yes, it's *possible*.  Most things in software are
> *possible* given enough time and work.  But that does not in any way
> suggest that everything which is possible "should be done".
>
> I think a more helpful question is not whether it is possible, but
> whether it is worth doing the work to hide a warning that is already
> mostly hidden :)
>
> If you want to take this request further, I would suggest filing a bug
> report in LaunchPad and providing full details there.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1fIywACgkQUGfT4+mKBLKqXgCfdOQyiTRFzNIacEWnPkTWruap
> MnYAnA4CYIAUy3eau0S5TDJT4ueByjbq
> =w2zO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop
> Post to     : lubuntu-desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

Running the first line of what you've said in a terminal didn't do the trick
for me. Can't try the second as i have nothing left to update :P

Honestly, i can't tell if it causes any real speed issue... and i can't test
it 'cause Ubuntu is a little heavy to test in my machines :(


Ps: Ok, i understand that maybe is a minor thing and there's no really bug
in here... but that's why the title of this topic is with a "?" in it. Next
time just say "it's not a bug and it's implicances are minimal, so it
doesn't matter" :) [Besides i'm just a tester that tries to help, i'm not a
programmer that understands how "those" things really works]

-- 
>> jpxsat <http://jpxsat-informatica.blogspot.com/>
>> Ubuntu user #29.157 (Lubuntu 10.04)
>> Linux user #522.597