Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Download" and "Upload" column is missing in Process Table #4

Open
Universebenzene opened this issue Jun 8, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Comments

@Universebenzene
Copy link

I installed ksysguard6 from AUR and noticed that Download and Upload columns are missing in Process Table. Did I miss any build dependencies or do I need more options for compiling?

@zvova7890
Copy link
Owner

Likely it was a plugin that isn't supported (yet)

@Universebenzene
Copy link
Author

Likely it was a plugin that isn't supported (yet)

So this was an internal plugin in ksysgard 5 and removed in 6? I used to install version 5 in several distros and always see the two columns available.

@zvova7890
Copy link
Owner

Correct. Plugins are disabled due to some problems, and I haven't paid much attention to it yet.

@jas0n098
Copy link

The issue with plugins seems to stem from processcore now being static instead of shared.

  1. It causes plugins to fail to build without -fPIC
  2. KPluginFactory rejects plugins with a cryptic error about not being able to instantiate the plugin classes when processcore (and the plugins) are built with -fPIC

Changing processcore back to building as shared library, plugin build errors are fixed and they are able to load successfully. I tested this with the network plugin and KSysGuard was able to show Download/Upload per process again.
The drawback to this is that it will obviously conflict with system libksysguard, which is probably why processcore was made static in the first place. In the end, there are probably a bunch of other approaches one could take here to fix them but I hope at least some of this was helpful

@zvova7890
Copy link
Owner

@jas0n098, thanks for the details! Maybe we can just rename it?

I will look into this when I have a chance.

Also, @jas0n098, if you have a working prototype, feel free to send an MR.

@jas0n098 jas0n098 mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2024
@jovaska1337 jovaska1337 mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants