Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 517
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by cwgtex View Post
    Well the context diffs get mixed up then.
    Nope.

    All my patch does is add a start comment ( /* ) and end comment ( */ ) to certain lines before and after the arrow and fade part sections of the stylesheet.
    Yes, and it does the exact same thing whether or not the named pages patch is installed.

    Now that I think about it, on a clean install, if a user installs my "no arrows" patch first, then they can install the "named pages" patch with no problems.
    The patches can install cleanly with each other in either order. There is no installation conflict.

    I have only seen reports of what the EFFECTS are (i.e. what the app launcher LOOKS like after both are installed). But both patches add exactly the right code in the places that they intend to.

    -Eric G

    WebOS Internals Developer.
    Follow me on Twitter for updates to my projects: | Virtual Keyboard | wIRC | SuperTux | AUPT | KeyBoss | freeTether |

    Donate
  2. #202  
    I had the 4x4 multi patch installed (which also added the add page code) and then I installed the name page patch. Everything was great. Then there was an update to the 4x4 multi patch and after the update it made all of the icons disappear. I uninstalled the 4x4 patch and they came back, but the ability to uninstall the patch is gone and I can not reinstall it because it says that it a patch is already installed.
  3. csrow's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    106 Global Posts
    #203  
    I ran EPR from WebOSQI to remove all of my patches. Then, I reinstalled all my patches except now I am having a problem trying to reinstall the Named Pages patch.

    It looks like Rename-Page-Assistant.jsjsjs $and$ $Rename$-$Page$.$html$ $was$ $not$ $removed$ $by$ $EPR$ $and$ $the$ $patch$ $install$ $is$ $failing$.

    How can I delete these two files so that I can install the patch?
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by csrow View Post
    I ran EPR from WebOSQI to remove all of my patches. Then, I reinstalled all my patches except now I am having a problem trying to reinstall the Named Pages patch.

    It looks like Rename-Page-Assistant.jsjsjs $and$ $Rename$-$Page$.$html$ $was$ $not$ $removed$ $by$ $EPR$ $and$ $the$ $patch$ $install$ $is$ $failing$.
    uisance.
    How can I delete these two files so that I can install the patch?
    I had to doctor to do it. It worked, but a nuisance.
    Laissez Faire
  5. cwgtex's Avatar
    Posts
    608 Posts
    Global Posts
    609 Global Posts
    #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by egaudet View Post
    The patches can install cleanly with each other in either order. There is no installation conflict.
    Yes, there is a conflict. Maybe not in the line by line code, but in the end result.

    I found the compatibility problem. The part of the code that "no arrows" comments out gets edited and used by "named pages". Specifically, the .launcher_arrow_top section.

    From the "named pages" patch:
    Code:
    @@ -59,7 +78,7 @@ body.palm-default
     	width: 100%;
     	z-index: 29;
     	height: 24px;
    -	top: 1px;
    +	top: 25px; /* Insert some space for the page selector (LMO) */
     	background: url(../images/fade-arrow-up.png) center center no-repeat;
     	-webkit-palm-mouse-target: ignore;
     }
    And here is the code from my patch:
    Code:
    @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
     	width: 320px;
     	height: 100%;	
     }
    -
    +/*
     .launcher_fade_bottom {
     	position: absolute;
     	bottom: 0px;
    @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
     	background: url(../images/fade-arrow-up.png) center center no-repeat;
     	-webkit-palm-mouse-target: ignore;
     }
    -
    +*/
     #pages_container {
     	position:relative;
     	left:0px;
    Last edited by cwgtex; 02/18/2010 at 09:38 PM.
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by cwgtex View Post
    Yes, there is a conflict. Maybe not in the line by line code, but in the end result.

    I found the compatibility problem. The part of the code that "no arrows" comments out gets edited and used by "named pages". Specifically, the .launcher_arrow_top section.
    Right what I am saying is that the conflict is in the fact that the named pages patch relies on part(s) of the code that no arrows patch is commenting out. I just was pointing out the conflict is purely in the functionalities and not in what specific lines the patches are touching.

    -Eric G

    WebOS Internals Developer.
    Follow me on Twitter for updates to my projects: | Virtual Keyboard | wIRC | SuperTux | AUPT | KeyBoss | freeTether |

    Donate
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by egaudet View Post
    Patch creators are not responsible for installation and removal problems. It is the job of AUPT to keep all patch installs/removals done properly. Try to remove all other app-launcher patches and then reinstall this one. If you get errors post your exact webos-patches.log file installation message into one of the AUPT threads.
    sorry but probably as newbie i don't get this....does a developer then doesn't need to care if his patch is having some install/remove problem? i mean, at least he should write on the patch description that there are some, let's say "well known", problems in install/remove....u surely have an idea of the time consuming thing of removing and reinstalling all the patches....
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by memfel View Post
    sorry but probably as newbie i don't get this....does a developer then doesn't need to care if his patch is having some install/remove problem? i mean, at least he should write on the patch description that there are some, let's say "well known", problems in install/remove....u surely have an idea of the time consuming thing of removing and reinstalling all the patches....
    Patch creators do NOT handle installation and removal scripts. There is one single installation and one single removal script used by ALL patches as part of the AUPT system. The only installation/removal issues that patch creators can control are compatibility issues with other patches.

    However you can't expect patch creators to know how every single other patch works. If there are compatibility issues, you can bring them up with the patch creators and see if it were possible for them to work together to help make them compatible.

    Also there are no well-known install/remove problems that I am aware of. There are a few rare situations where a couple patches can only be installed and removed in a specific order because of how they play with each others' contexts but any specific examples have yet to be brought to my attention.

    If you have any installation or removal issues that you cannot resolve, and have searched for official solutions but could find then please report them to the AUPT thread with the relevant webos-patches.log information (entire file if you can't parse through it). It's not a good idea to wrongfully accuse a patch creator of installation issues. Understand that patching in general is not a clean subject, find official solutions to your problem and help us debug your issues without jumping to conclusions.

    -Eric G

    WebOS Internals Developer.
    Follow me on Twitter for updates to my projects: | Virtual Keyboard | wIRC | SuperTux | AUPT | KeyBoss | freeTether |

    Donate
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by egaudet View Post
    It's not a good idea to wrongfully accuse a patch creator of installation issues. Understand that patching in general is not a clean subject, find official solutions to your problem and help us debug your issues without jumping to conclusions.
    First of all, I'm not a developer so I have no dog in this hunt. However, I feel compelled to throw in my 10 cents (two not being worth anything any more).

    Knowing that these patches change the basic Palm WebOS I have used them sparingly and with trepidation. But the ones I have used - particularly this one - have added to the usability of my Pre immensely. And, all of this for free!

    All these patches make the Pre what it should be. Palm should incorporate this patch in their code (and compensate the developer) along with enabling the ability to add/delete launcher pages.

    A big thank you to all the developers is in order - not criticism.

    Tony
  10. #210  
    Hey does anyone know how I can get version 6 of this Name Pages patch to work, I had it working but removed it to reload it through Webos Quickinstall 3.01 for the new AUPT-3 technology and now when I try to install it back this is the error I get below.. Is it because the patch is not made for AUPT-3? Now if I try to install version 5 from preware it works fine, but I want version 6 because of the smaller name fonts. Any help would be greatly appreciated.....

    ---------------------------------
    Installation FAILED!
    ----------------------------------
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file usr/lib/luna/system/luna-applauncher/app/views/launcher/launcher-scene.html.rej
    ls -R /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6
    /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6:
    app-launcher-named-pages-v6.patch
    package_list
    *** FAILED ***
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by egaudet View Post
    Patch creators do NOT handle installation and removal scripts. There is one single installation and one single removal script used by ALL patches as part of the AUPT system. The only installation/removal issues that patch creators can control are compatibility issues with other patches.

    However you can't expect patch creators to know how every single other patch works. If there are compatibility issues, you can bring them up with the patch creators and see if it were possible for them to work together to help make them compatible.

    Also there are no well-known install/remove problems that I am aware of. There are a few rare situations where a couple patches can only be installed and removed in a specific order because of how they play with each others' contexts but any specific examples have yet to be brought to my attention.

    If you have any installation or removal issues that you cannot resolve, and have searched for official solutions but could find then please report them to the AUPT thread with the relevant webos-patches.log information (entire file if you can't parse through it). It's not a good idea to wrongfully accuse a patch creator of installation issues. Understand that patching in general is not a clean subject, find official solutions to your problem and help us debug your issues without jumping to conclusions.
    Sorry, it was not my idea to jump to conclusions, just to underline that when we notice that a patch may present install and removal problems then maybe it'd be better to advertise it somehow directly in the patch description. I installed lot of patches and i agree that all this job u developers do to take out so much from this phone is simply amazing and incredibly valuable. I really do appreciate all this work and i also am able to use my phone just because of useful infos i found on this forum, otherwise i would still be waiting since 2 months and a half for palm to give me a way to connect to my network.

    nonetheless, without blaming or accusing anyone in anyway, i just think it's a good thing to just say in a patch description..."look, there are some well or less well known problems" with removal or re-install....mine is just an idea for information clarity, nothing else. sorry if it may have sound differently. as i said, being a newbie and now knowing all as well, i though every developer was responsible and had to put interest in the correct functioning of his patches, from install to removal and eventual re-install.
  12. #212  
    Any way you could add one more space to the drop-down list to eliminate the need for scrolling if you have 8 pages?
    My device history:

    - Jim J.

    (On Sprint for many years)
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by memfel View Post
    Sorry, it was not my idea to jump to conclusions, just to underline that when we notice that a patch may present install and removal problems then maybe it'd be better to advertise it somehow directly in the patch description. I installed lot of patches and i agree that all this job u developers do to take out so much from this phone is simply amazing and incredibly valuable. I really do appreciate all this work and i also am able to use my phone just because of useful infos i found on this forum, otherwise i would still be waiting since 2 months and a half for palm to give me a way to connect to my network.

    nonetheless, without blaming or accusing anyone in anyway, i just think it's a good thing to just say in a patch description..."look, there are some well or less well known problems" with removal or re-install....mine is just an idea for information clarity, nothing else. sorry if it may have sound differently. as i said, being a newbie and now knowing all as well, i though every developer was responsible and had to put interest in the correct functioning of his patches, from install to removal and eventual re-install.
    It seems you are misunderstanding my point, and in the interest of not getting too technical continuing to derail this thread I will add only one last question.

    May I ask what removal or re-install problems are there that is specific to this patch?

    -Eric G

    WebOS Internals Developer.
    Follow me on Twitter for updates to my projects: | Virtual Keyboard | wIRC | SuperTux | AUPT | KeyBoss | freeTether |

    Donate
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by egaudet View Post
    It seems you are misunderstanding my point, and in the interest of not getting too technical continuing to derail this thread I will add only one last question.

    May I ask what removal or re-install problems are there that is specific to this patch?
    i don't think to misunderstand ur point, simply i add a point to the technical details u gave me, that is not technical but practical.
    when a patch may present, to whatever this may be due, some install-removal-reinstall problems for some users, then it is worth, to my newbie non-technical point of view to just write in the patch description that some users presented some problems. this is not due to blame the developer for anything, but just for users information.

    and my request was and still is to the developer. developer states in the description that the patch is more compatible with some other patches and incompatible with some others. maybe can the developer just add that some problems may be experienced, to whatever they are due, in the removal of the patch and that removal may be impossible unless doctoring?this till of course the problem is solved in the relevant places (aupt egaudet said).

    as of my case, i stated my experience in my first post in this thread when i was looking for help to correctly remove the patch and to inform the developer of my problem and ask him what to do.
    my problem is, i repeat, i installed the patch, it worked fine. i removed it cause i didn't needed it and i didn't wanted the names to remove space from the top of the launcher, but names are still there. patch is like installable from preware, but cannot install cause it says it is already installed.but since it is installable i cannot retry a removal. so, i gently asked, what can i do to remove it properly? do i need to doctor my phone as other users who presented install and removal problems suggested?
    if please egaudet can read the thread i am not the only one who had problems.
  15. cwgtex's Avatar
    Posts
    608 Posts
    Global Posts
    609 Global Posts
    #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by caj2008 View Post
    This patch could have used more Beta testing before being rolled out. Sometimes I thnk we are in too much of a hurry. It is a great patch, but version 5 was flawless in terms of compatibility and works well with the early version of the wrap pages patch. It looks great also.
    If you are using this patch, or any patch, then you are a beta tester . I don't believe a single patch in Preware or otherwise is officially approved by Palm, and therefore beta. All patches are "use at your own risk".

    Maybe you mean more testing by the developer or a small group of test subjects, which would alpha testing (I think that's the right term).
  16. #216  
    Hey does anyone know how I can get version 6 of this Name Pages patch to work, I had it working but removed it to reload it through Webos Quickinstall 3.01 for the new AUPT-3 technology and now when I try to install it back this is the error I get below.. Is it because the patch is not made for AUPT-3? Now if I try to install version 5 from preware it works fine, but I want version 6 because of the smaller name fonts. Any help would be greatly appreciated.....

    ---------------------------------
    Installation FAILED!
    ----------------------------------
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file usr/lib/luna/system/luna-applauncher/app/views/launcher/launcher-scene.html.rej
    ls -R /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6
    /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6:
    app-launcher-named-pages-v6.patch
    package_list
    *** FAILED ***
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by yanks4life View Post
    Hey does anyone know how I can get version 6 of this Name Pages patch to work, I had it working but removed it to reload it through Webos Quickinstall 3.01 for the new AUPT-3 technology and now when I try to install it back this is the error I get below.. Is it because the patch is not made for AUPT-3? Now if I try to install version 5 from preware it works fine, but I want version 6 because of the smaller name fonts. Any help would be greatly appreciated.....

    ---------------------------------
    Installation FAILED!
    ----------------------------------
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file usr/lib/luna/system/luna-applauncher/app/views/launcher/launcher-scene.html.rej
    ls -R /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6
    /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6:
    app-launcher-named-pages-v6.patch
    package_list
    *** FAILED ***
    +1 same issue, it worked back in January...
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by yanks4life View Post
    Hey does anyone know how I can get version 6 of this Name Pages patch to work, I had it working but removed it to reload it through Webos Quickinstall 3.01 for the new AUPT-3 technology and now when I try to install it back this is the error I get below.. Is it because the patch is not made for AUPT-3? Now if I try to install version 5 from preware it works fine, but I want version 6 because of the smaller name fonts. Any help would be greatly appreciated.....

    ---------------------------------
    Installation FAILED!
    ----------------------------------
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file usr/lib/luna/system/luna-applauncher/app/views/launcher/launcher-scene.html.rej
    ls -R /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6
    /media/cryptofs/apps/usr/palm/applications/ca.canucksoftware.patches.app-launcher-named-pages-v6:
    app-launcher-named-pages-v6.patch
    package_list
    *** FAILED ***
    I had to doctor to get it to work. Worth it though -- a great patch.
    Laissez Faire
  19. cwgtex's Avatar
    Posts
    608 Posts
    Global Posts
    609 Global Posts
    #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by cwgtex View Post
    I found the compatibility problem. The part of the code that "no arrows" comments out gets edited and used by "named pages". Specifically, the .launcher_arrow_top section.
    Alright, I fixed the "no arrows" patch. It should work now. Updated version is attached in that thread (click here). I also submitted the update to Preware. Once the change log on Preware shows "fixed compatibility issues", then that version will be good to go on the "named pages" patch.
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by prubin View Post
    I had to doctor to get it to work. Worth it though -- a great patch.
    Did you have to do a full or partial erase also?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions