torios-dev team mailing list archive

[Israel <israel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nio,
I commented on this bug.

As far as using in ToriOS, my main issue is the name :)
If it was called Light or Fast or just Software Center I would not mind.

And I posted a 'way' to do what you guys were discussing.  I did
something similar in ToriOS packaging (it is still there but we do not
use wicd or slim anymore) to overcome the terrible wicd icons and the
default configuration of slim.  My postinst ran a script.  I think you
can run the script with &disown (or just &) and it could wait until apt
is finished to update the database.

You could test things by simply modifying the archive (deb file).
just open it up and modify the postinst file.  the postinst file is a
shell script usually using sh rather than bash.

fixer_script="/usr/bin/fix_lsc"
if [ -x "${fixer_script}" ]
then
  sudo "${fixer_script}" &disown
fi


fix_lsc could be super simple

#!/bin/bash
sleep 500
sudo lubuntu-software-center-build-db /var/cache/lsc_packages.db
/usr/share/app-install/desktop/ /usr/share/LSC/categories.ini
sudo dpkg-reconfigure lubuntu-software-center

but it could also be more complex to check for a 'flag' file, or
actually look to make sure there is internet, and make sure apt is not
running.

I am sure you could write a very good script to do this task.


On 04/25/2015 03:38 AM, Nio Wiklund wrote:
> Hi Israel,
>
> Would it be interesting to have LSC as an option in the installed system
> (tarball) of ToriOS (without the database (~80 MB))? It might be
> bug-fixed in such a way, that it will suit for this purpose - that the
> database will be created the first time the program is run.
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
>


-- 
Regards

-Israel
ToriOS Team