See the following correspondence:
Best regards
Nio
___________________________________
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-software-center/+bug/1446830
Jörn Schönyan (joern-schoenyan) wrote on 2015-04-23: #35
Hi Nio,
1. it is way faster, really a big difference. USC was made a bit faster,
but it's still not comparable to LSC.
2. I guess most Lubuntu users are using it, but alternate iso installs
are quite rare. And as the DB is regenerated from time to time, nobody
noticed that issue.
3. It's working fine mostly and doesn't take much space, so I think we
should keep it. Remember, LSC was the thing how I came to Lubuntu ;-)
@Walter: we could redesign it, yes. It could use Appstream data, like
the future Lubuntu/LXQt software center will. But it would be really a
lot of work and we don't have the manpower, I think. I think "Won't fix"
is the only solution in our position. Would only be worth the effort if
other flavours would like to adopt LSC - Ubuntu GNOME wants it, but only
as an interim solution. Xubuntu doesn't want it, so I think it will be
abandoned (more or less) soon.
-------- Vidarebefordrat meddelande --------
Ämne: Re: LSC
Datum: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:32:21 +0200
Från: Nio Wiklund <nio.wiklund@xxxxxxxxx>
Till: Jörn Schönyan <joern.schoenyan@xxxxxx>
Den 2015-04-23 21:16, Nio Wiklund skrev:
Hi Jörn,
Continuing the discussion privately from:
---
"OK, let us call it "won't fix" now.
I would suggest that Jörn and I discuss the issue privately and maybe
agree about the details and after that ask Julien (gilir) to help us add
such a file when creating the alternate iso file. I guess there is a set
of scripts (similar to (but more advanced than) what I use to create
9w), and if that is the case, it is straightforward to create a file
(which can be empty, just have a specified path/name). Jörn and I might
also find a better solution, that needs nothing beyond what can be
included in he LSC package."
---
I think the details are best discussed privately rather than via the bug
report
You mentioned that the database is small, way too small to be the
correct one in comment #23 of the bug report #1446830:
---
"No, it is clearly a design flaw. While the DB is being generated, it
drops every package without installation candidate. On the alternate
install, there are no informations about the avaible packages so
everything is dropped, if it isn't installed. That is why DB is that
small, it should be around 80 megs (see #2).
Running apt-get update as postinst would have no effect if no internet
connection is avaible (not sure if it works with internet). To be
honest, I don't see a good fix for this. We could avoid dropping of
entries without installation candidate, but that would mean that
uninstallable packages appear in LSC."
---
Can the decision to regenerate the database be triggered by the
combination of
(smaller database than a certain size) && (access to the internet)
when running the LSC. So effectively, it would happen the first time the
user runs LSC is systems installed by the alternate iso file.
I think it would be possible for you to tell what should be the
threshold or size of the database for triggering the regeneration?
Maybe the threshold can be 'in the middle' between a typical 'too small
size' and a typical 'full size database'. As a temporary bugfix it need
not last forever, but might last at least until the next LTS release.
Best regards
Nio
Hi again Jörn,
If you really would prefer a separate file as a flag, please tell me
what would be a good path and name of that file, and I will ask Julien
Lavergne to create such a file (it can be an empty file) with the
alternate installer. I'm not sure that he would do it, but it should be
easy for him, if wants to help us.
The reason I ask, if the size of the database would be enough to
determine the need of regeneration, is that it would make us less
dependent of help from Julien.
Best regards
Nio
___________________________________
