[packagekit] Yum and locking

David Zeuthen david at fubar.dk
Thu Oct 18 23:42:26 PDT 2007

On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 07:51 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> Why not, the yum-updatesd is installed by default on all fedora
> systems and yum has a plugin triggering yum-updatesd each time it is
> run (by DBUS)

I respectfully disagree. If PackageKit turns out to work well on Fedora,
we simply avoid installing yum-updatesd (and other things like pirut and
pup) on the Fedora Desktop spin / livecd [1].

There's also the angle of duplication of functionality; speaking for the
Fedora Desktop team I can say that avoiding apps with duplicate
functionality is somewhat we try hard to do; e.g. you won't find two web
browsers, two email clients etc. in the default install. Hence, there's
no reason whatsoever to include two auto-updaters in the default
install. It just doesn't make sense.

It's all fine, and it's one of the reasons why spins are so useful in
the context Fedora.

Also, I for one, wouldn't mind saving 7.5MB writeable memory that
yum-updatesd is now occupying not to mention the few seconds it delays
my bootup.... [2]

> Even if PK is doing some of the same things, then yum-updatesd is a
> player we have to deal with.

We have to deal with it in terms of co-existing and not causing data
corruption etc. I'd just think of it as another user of yum; e.g. not
much different from if I were to use yum from the command line (which I
will continue to do even when I have PK goodness; my excuse is that I'm
a developer!).


[1] : of course, other Fedora spins can do what they want and it may
even make sense of them to go with yum-updatesd...

[2] : it used to be *much* worse but the mantra these days is that every
bit and every second counts

More information about the PackageKit mailing list