Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Might it be the case that du follows links into other file-systems and includes the size of their contents?

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

The -x switch is supposed to make it not do that.


Maybe that's not operational here, where du is just a symlink to busybox. But it claims to support the switch:

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Maybe you should show step by step what is the problem? According to your previous message package was properly uninstalled.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

thanks for your reply. I'm sorry that i'm quite new to linux system. how can i show it step by step? or is there any command link i can use in xterminal to do that?

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

I think he's just asking for you to explain what your problem is, slowly and thoroughly, one step at a time.

If you read the posts above, it's been said a couple of times that the dpkg output you posted looks normal. i.e. the "problem" is not visible.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

I've completed the list of non-opt usage in the first post. Hope it's useful for some

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Maybe I can help you guys here. If you are receiving this information when using dpkg then mplayer is removed from your system. That first field that says "RC" means that the package was removed, but configuration files left.

If dpkg --purge was used to remove the package, or the package was never installed, then the first two letters would be "un". If the package is installed, you would see "ii".

Another, more english way to view this, is using:

Pay attention to the status line... "not-installed". Evidently I don't have xserver-xephyr installed on my desktop. So those of you that are thinking mplayer did not remove from your system.. please try this command, or verify that your -l command says "rc" or "un". Either of these will indicated that yes, it has been removed.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

I changed your script, so that the line
$du = `du -s /$_`;
now is
$du = `du -xs /$_`;

But it looks like "du" still follows the links. I tried in on mc which I manually moved away from rootfs. Although I'm not sure what your script does at that point of time - or in which directory "du" thinks it is.

Sorry, but I don't know perl - the only thing is that I heard people say it is a write only language (no read ;)).

So, does anyone now, how to modify that script to don't follow symbolic links?

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

"du" does NOT follow symbolic links, i just tested it.

btw, -P is the du-switch to deactivate symlinks, but it's not present on the tablet, and it's supposed to be default anyways.

what makes you say that du follows links? any hard evidence?

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

I didn't actually test this before posting the script, because I assumed du behaviour would be normal (i.e. don't follow symlinks) but here's a quick test which seems to show it is normal:

the -x switch is not relevant to symlinks in particular. It's to tell du not to look at disk usage on separate filesystems which are mounted under the directory it's looking at.

So

du -s /

would give the disk usage for everything under / including /home and /home/user/MyDocs, which are separate filesystems, but

du -sx /

would only give the disk usage for the filesystem that / was part of.

Or, to give another example:

The first result is bigger because it's counting /home/user/MyDocs. The second result doesn't look at that, because it's a separate mount to /home, and the -x switch has been given.

So in short ;) the script shouldn't need any change to do the Right Thing in relation to symlinks :)

Edit: :o :o Nope, it did the Wrong Thing in relation to symlinked directories. Please get the new version (from the original place) if you're having trouble with that.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

j.s already said it, but here a link with a detailed explanation for this discrepancy:
http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/f...ml#L_df_report

"df" only reports the physically allocated memory and does not account for the compression that's taking place.
"du" however reports the actual size of the files, and not their compressed, physical size.
Thus, "du" will always report a higher usage than "df".

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Thanks for the interesting link. Just one minor nitpick (I can't help myself ;) )

Well, kind of. du is supposed to report the disk allocation associated with the file. On an ext3 filesystem where the block size is 4k, even a 1 byte file will have a 4k block allocated to it, and du will show this.

On a compressed filesystem, this might be misleading because the "4k block" has only a virtual existence and doesn't reflect the actual disk usage associated with the file. At least as I understand it.

You can see this below. ls shows the file size (1 byte) whereas du shows (what it thinks is) the disk allocation..

~# echo > testfile
~# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1 Dec 22 12:18 testfile
~# du -h testfile
4.0k testfile

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Hi,
thanks for the long list of non-optified applications. There is a list in the wiki where the applications should be added to track which are already optified for which are already exististing bug reports and so on:

http://wiki.maemo.org/Opt_Problem/Non-Optified_packages

For example fennec/firefox and vagalume are optified after reporting and a lot of other developers which are contacted are aware of the problem and will optify their packages.

Thank you,
Uwe

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

I confirm the "du" behavior.

What I did is:
I put the perl script on my device. I run it:
Then I look at the output and get (for mc as an example):
Then I checked /usr/share/mc (which holds some 2xx kb files). So I did:
Contrary to
The linked file /usr/bin/mc is given with 0 size. But all files that are in a linked folder show up with a size (even though they are on a different file system). My expectation would be - that there are also shown as zero sized, because they are not on rootfs. So assume, there is something wrong?

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Yep, that's definitely a problem with the script. (du is behaving as expected, but the script doesn't take account of symlinked directories). I'll try and fix soon. In the meantime, anyone else.. please feel free :)

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Ok, here's an amended version of the script which tries to check for symlinked directories (by parsing the output of ls -l .. yuck!) ... recursively and with caching. May well be full of holes.. feedback welcome :)

I've put the extension as .txt to allow file-upload.

Edit: I've also updated the original script where first posted between [code] tags, above.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

instead of parsing for "->", you can just use this file test function:
that's probably more reliable :)

i'll give your script a go a bit later when i have more time.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Actually, I do use that, but I need to find where it is linked to :)

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

ah yes, i'm sorry, should've read your script more careful. :)

for parsing the target of a link, there's a dedicated command available: readlink

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Thank you for the rework. Also thank you for the effort you invest (script size doubled).

Unfortunately I still see some issues :( (and I still did not learn perl ;)).

The mc package (which I moved away and linked it) seems to be handled correctly now. Thank you :).

But now I just saw the following thing.

Report from the actual script version; from your original post (which I used):

So I guess there are more filesystem checks needed. Because for me it looks like the addblock-plus reported by the script are not on rootfs. For me "optified" means more "not on rootfs" than in a specific directory. Maybe thats where my problem comes from ^^.

But I would tend to say adblock-plus-1.0 is optified, though it is not in /opt.

Sorry for that trouble :o.

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Not at all.. Thanks for the QA ;)

It's because when the file isn't a symlink, I'm only checking for /opt. I should also check for /home too.

I've amended the version in my original post, linked above.

I'll amend the attached version probably later today or tomorrow.

Really, it's just changing the line

unless(/^opt/ or /^usr\/share\/(man|doc)\//) {

to

unless(/^opt/ or /^home/ or /^usr\/share\/(man|doc)\//) {

Hope that works. Happy holidays! :)

Re: Help You. Identify the non-optified apps.
 

Please someone sticky this thread and keep it maintained so that we all know when we get our n900 what's gonna eat up our 256rom.
The list of apps not following guidelines to be optified needs to be posted somewhere and stickied.
How will new users reverse the damage?
Can you say with 100% certainty anything in a repo that is not extras testing or extras devel is optified?
Is that the basic rule here?