[packagekit] Things that need fixing

[Richard Hughes]

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:59 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
> Let's just make it the default, then, at least for the update system
> call.  For installs, or more targetted updates, having things atomic
> makes more sense to me.

Totally.

> > >> I would be nice if there was some way to control this from pk, but
> > >> we have to extend the signals some how to signal packages being
> > >> skipped from the transaction.
> > > 
> > > Just don't emit the Package() for the skipped package. We'll always
> > > get it again when we requeue the GetUpdates.
> > > 
> >   I think the users will find it strange, if they update the system,
> > and there is some updates left after the update, without some notice.
> > is there a signal to send a post transaction message ?
> 
> I agree, there should still be some sort of error message to the user.

Not error, as that implies the transaction failed. What we need to do is
either emit a "skipped" status Package() call, or a message saying "Some
updates could not be applied" - we can add an enum for both or either of
these trivially.

Richard.