[packagekit] Properties and Supported

[Robin Norwood]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:53:44 +0100
Sebastian Heinlein <glatzor at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> 
> Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2008, 11:25 -0500 schrieb Robin Norwood:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:03:12 +0000
> > Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 16:59 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> > > > Later on I learn that part of the system is going to be designed
> > > > around a single third-party vendor (Canonical).
> > > 
> > > Do you mean PackageKit? If so, I think it's important to discuss
> > > ways of working with canonical, and making changes to the API if
> > > it's sane to do so. At the moment we've just added a supported
> > > filter, and I guess I'll be also adding a supported boolean in
> > > GetDescription. I can't see many big changes there. I don't want
> > > to get in the way of ubuntu, but I don't want the system designed
> > > around it.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced about the whole 'supported' thing myself, since
> > there are many different meanings of the word.  But, if the guys
> > working on that backend think it's useful, it doesn't really impact
> > other backends that much.  The yum backend can either ignore it, or
> > if we can find a useful definition, we can include it.  I do think
> > PK should make clear somehow what 'supported' means in that
> > context, though.  That's up to the guys working on that backend
> > though, I guess.
> 
> I am not a marketing guy. So perhaps we should ask the ones from
> distributions what their needs would be. Especially in the case of
> handling extra repositories.
> 
> Does RedHat plan to use PackageKit in its cooperate edition?

Right now we're working to get it in as the default for F9 (replacing
pup/pirut).  If so, it's likely that it would be the default also in
RHEL6.  But of course, that decision is above my pay grade. :-)

-RN

-- 
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching