[ralphy]

It would be good to review the Repairing package system logic in Lite Tweaks.

https://github.com/linuxlite/litetweaks/...super#L553

The statement only evaluates if the file /etc/apt/sources.list.save is not present and doesn't take action on the file if it actually exists but has been altered. As recently experienced by a user in [url=http://"https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/installing-software/no-updates-available/msg27580/?boardseen#new"]this thread[/url], Repairing package system didn't help out because /etc/apt/sources.list.save existed but had been modified.

[valtam]

Thanks ralphy, you're welcome to contribute a merge request.

[ralphy]

Jerry,

I've been working on it for an hour now... I will definitely deliver something in the next hour or so. So far, I have included some additional checks in Lite Tweaks, as well as some information for the end user:

1- Lite Tweaks will let the user know why administrator credentials are asked for, when needed:



2- In cases where no administrator credentials is provided



3- Check for Internet connection before Package System Repair execution



4- Small changes to Lite Tweaks Info window



5- Make sure that sources.list, sources.list.save as well as linuxlite.list, linuxlite.list.save are properly reset based on the issue experienced by the previous user.

[valtam]

Very nice :)

[LL-user]

Great stuff, ralphy! :)

I see that you refer to administrator credentials to gain administrator privileges. That might confuse users, especially the ones new to Linux and the sudo/root concept! And in fact they do need to provide their user credentials and not administrator credentials :)

[ralphy]

Guys,

What function do you use to get the release version? Right now I'm working on recreating linuxlite.list and linuxlite.list.save for Package System Repair. I need to pull the correct release version from somewhere to make sure the file is properly created according to the release. I remember I saw somewhere you used something like:

Code:

LLVER=$(awk '{print $3}' /etc/llver)

if [ "$LLVER" == "3.0" ]; then
   do
elif [ "$LLVER" == "3.2" ]; then
   do
...

Is 3.x citrine? I'm asking because On my system I have 3.2 installed but LLVER tells me that I'm on 3.0... so I'm not sure that's the correct file to trust at this point :(

[ralphy]

Great stuff, ralphy! :)

I see that you refer to administrator credentials to gain administrator privileges. That might confuse users, especially the ones new to Linux and the sudo/root concept! And in fact they do need to provide their user credentials and not administrator credentials :)

I understand your point. Do you have a suggestion to make it sound more Windows-like?  Something like:

Some tasks require administrative privileges for execution
You will be prompted for credentials next.

I kinda understand the concept of LL and wording it differently may be needed. I'm open to suggestions.

[valtam]

Guys,

What function do you use to get the release version? Right now I'm working on recreating linuxlite.list and linuxlite.list.save for Package System Repair. I need to pull the correct release version from somewhere to make sure the file is properly created according to the release. I remember I saw somewhere you used something like:

Code:

LLVER=$(awk '{print $3}' /etc/llver)

if [ "$LLVER" == "3.0" ]; then
   do
elif [ "$LLVER" == "3.2" ]; then
   do
...

Is 3.x citrine? I'm asking because On my system I have 3.2 installed but LLVER tells me that I'm on 3.0... so I'm not sure that's the correct file to trust at this point :(

LLVER can be trusted, now :) There was a bug in Lite Upgrade which has since been fixed. If you run Lite Upgrade (even though you have 3.2 installed) it will report correctly.

In terms of 'wording' Linux Lite prefers to use terms familiar to Windows (since they are solely our target audience) users eg. 'root' become 'Administrator' and so on. As long as your wording considers how Windows words things, you'll be fine.

[LL-user]

I understand your point. Do you have a suggestion to make it sound more Windows-like?  Something like:

Some tasks require administrative privileges for execution
You will be prompted for credentials next.

I kinda understand the concept of LL and wording it differently may be needed. I'm open to suggestions.

Along what you have I would use:

Some tasks require administrative privileges for execution.
You will be prompted for your user password next.

[ralphy]

Very nice :)

Thank you, Jerry. I have created a pull request for your consideration.