[packagekit] availability of a distribution upgrade

[Richard Hughes]

(cc'd on the list, I hope this is okay)

On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 14:40 +0200, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > I don't think checking for major OS _upgrades_ is in the same use case
> > or abstract form as checking for minor updates and so I don't think the
> > GetUpdates method should be used for this.
> >
> >   
> It is not the same usecase, but we implement both with the same concept. 
> So actually the only difference would be how the backend handles the 
> patch (based on the category for example).

For your backed, sure, it's an easy add. I think the GUI tool to display
the upgrades info should be part of gnome-packagekit ad KPackageKit too
I think.

> >> Till now I haven't touched anything in PK that is not already there, the 
> >> only thing that is missing, is to launch the workflow. This could be 
> >> done by the backend, but I think it is better that the workflow is 
> >> started by the application that started the patch, in this case the 
> >> applet, with the user permissions, and in case the work flow needs root, 
> >> it can be started with the desktop specific su.
> >>     
> >
> > Does the workflow need root -- or could all the root stuff be done with
> > PackageKit methods?
> >
> >   
> It needs root, but as it is an X program, or a console program, 
> depending on who is the client, wouldn't be better to make the backend 
> emit the task that needs to follow and let the client start the workflow?

Not sure on this yet. For instance, if my GUI client gets back there's a
stable update available, it might be as simple as just calling
RepoSetData("upgrade", "fedora-9") and then calling UpdateSystem() -- or
it might be quite a bit more complicated. I don't think defining how the
upgrade is done should be mandated by PackageKit.

> How does the helper thing work? otherwise I think it look fine. We can 
> filter the patches with certain category as distribution upgrades in the 
> backend, that is no problem.

Sure, the "it's available!!!" part of the API looks pretty easy to add.
I might even sneak this in before 0.3.0, it depends how my weekend goes.

Richard.