[LG V20 Guides, News, & Discussion] xdav20:
[MENTION=1057334]hotcell[/MENTION]

I have attached a modified version of ast.install that would double check if 'mount' command remounted /system rw or not. If the script still fails to copy your scripts, without displaying an error message, then, and previously, the problem has nothing to do with my script. I haven't developed 'mount' binary nor know why on your particular system things doesn't work normally. There is no 'fake' message, because of what happens the script assumes everything went well. If the scripts were previously copied to the target location, there is no easy way to know if the copy was successful or not. For such non-critical job, doing more is waste of time.

"ast.storage -lb online" displays the mounted partitions. The very last data is the current read/write status of the partition. After a reboot, could you run the above command to see what it prints about /system partition before and after running ast.install please.

I'm a tool maker, I'm not going to tell anyone where you can use my tool. I can provide guidance how the tool should be used, for productivity purposes only. What thing you have forgotten was, ast.np is a helper tool for Android Netpolicy tool. Without ast.np it is, literally, impossible to use it due to the input format it takes. Knowing how over analytical you can be, I made it clear I wish to stay away from any future debates myself. I have not stated, no one else can debate about it on my thread. I'm sorry, if you took my statement personally and I encourage you to use my thread to discuss anything related to AST. I would response, if I had to.

I thought for a while, how can I prove to [MENTION=1057334]hotcell[/MENTION] I wasn't being sarcastic when I "liked" his post? My proof is at the very end of that post when stated: "Since I know you like AST, how about sharing something with the community about how it made things easier for you?" If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have stated a factual thing, I would had said; "If you like AST then why don't you...". Since I meant what I said without a menacing connotation, I stand by my previous decision. However, I do share your sentiment about the "like" system in place.

I have a serious issue with you or anyone else who think I have to accommodate to their specific needs in the same release that is meant for the public and no matter how accommodating I have been to you, you still have an approach that I don't feel comfortable with it. I will response equally to anyone who would want to dedicate terms to me. Once you renamed the scripts, I do not have to change the installer with your suggestion method, period. Have you thought, in the same directory users might have scripts or files starting with the "ast" prefix? That was the reason I hard-coded the script names to avoid potential disasters.

Edit: Noticed your edited comment about everything started working after a reboot. I do not like to discuss about something, specially in a public forum, when I do not have factual information. I'm normally good at observing patterns. I'm purely guessing, the reason behind the failure of mount command is to do with how certain file managers that support root handle mounting /system partition. Of course, there is always more than one reasons to such conditions.

Here is what you can do to see if that is the caase or not. Do everything as you would do after a reboot. Use the file managers you use and access the /system partition and copy something over to force the file manager to make the /system partition rw. Exit the file manager and then try the installer script again. Repeat the same thing, this time don't use the same file managers and after the system has been up and running for awhile, try the installer script again. What did you observe?