[packagekit] Res: PackageKit & Debian, Was: External dependencies, DeviceKit-power and GNOME Power Manager
dantti85-pk at yahoo.com.br
Wed Nov 26 06:31:04 PST 2008
let me jump into this discussion :P
well i might not be the one who really
understands apt+dpkg internals, but i use
Debian for about 3 years.
First i don't agree with the mysql+wiki idea,
no this is not a regression, what kind of
end user want a wiki? why postgres don't ask
such password thing(ok i'll not start a db
flame here), also if he want's he will "soon
or later" need to learn how to edit some files
I think that user interaction is something
backends might need. Well i'm not Richard
but i have some ideas that i think can benefit
in all these years using Debian the package system
is what most impress me, you can hit CTRL+C any time
and things never get broken, so i imagine there is
no problem to schedule "packages pending configuration".
All packages that need an interaction such as
"which is the workgroup for samba", could go to this
pending configuration, imo this is completely possible
as i had done it with aptitude several times and
things finished fine.
Also for the user interacion i think packagekit
could provide a simple and yet powerful api for
dialogs, providing, yes|No, Yes|No|Default, OK|Cancel with
user input, that could be used for debconf, on those
packages pending configuration.
Well this is just an idea that could start solving problens,
i'm trying to learn apt api, but the docs don't have
examples of usage so it's proving to be harder than
i hope you find this usefull,
De: Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com>
Para: PackageKit users and developers list <packagekit at lists.freedesktop.org>
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 26 de Novembro de 2008 12:05:13
Assunto: Re: [packagekit] PackageKit & Debian, Was: External dependencies, DeviceKit-power and GNOME Power Manager
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 14:40 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I might sound like an asshole here, but I'm not going to be bullied into
> > putting functionality in which blocks a transaction.
> But on the other side, we are not going to embrace a tool that does not
> have this functionality.
Sure, I'm not forcing you to. If you're just interested in replacing
synaptic then PackageKit probably isn't the framework you need. If
you're looking at the end users, and what they are trying to do with
their computer, it probably is the framework you should be using.
> So this really means that we will have to develop and maintain a fork if
> we want to integrate PackageKit in our desktop.
You're free to fork PackageKit and do whatever you want. I just think
you might have misunderestimated the amount of work this would require.
PackageKit mailing list
PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the PackageKit