hughsient at gmail.com
Wed May 18 01:26:06 PDT 2011
On 18 May 2011 09:02, Gareth Foster <earthwormgaz at gmail.com> wrote:
> It'd be nice if the GUI could be a little more friendly.
Yup, that's what we're aiming to do with AppStream:
> Also, it'd be much better to see icons for these installable items. Things
> like system libraries I think, ought to be hidden for the basic use case,
> with an option somewhere to show them. Most of the time, the user just wants
> to see a list of Apps (there, I said it).
Sure, but I think we do need two views on the data, one (like we have
now) for packages, and one seporate app for applications.
> While we're at it, what about star ratings for said apps?
We're planning to use OCS for that.
> Also, I always thought it'd be nice if web sites could host a simple file,
> say we're talking XChat. The XChat web site can have an "Install now with
> PackageKit" icon, that links to a simple file that will be launched in
> PackageKit and tell it anything it needs to install XChat on any distro. The
> icon could be a stock thing for any web site to use, with Gnome 3.0 and
> PackageKit type branding.
Yup, that already exists. Checkout what catalog files are. See
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html#1-click-install for details.
> One last point, is there anything that could be done to encourage
> (admittedly closed source) game developers to Linux through PackageKit? Much
> like Steam and the respective App Stores have done for Apple and Android.
I think the problem is creating a universal binary often means
staticly linking in half the distro. This upsets the security people
More information about the PackageKit