[packagekit] viability of the current yum backend ?

Matthias Clasen matthias.clasen at gmail.com
Wed Jan 2 12:45:22 PST 2008

On Jan 2, 2008 2:52 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, what about just modifying the GetUpdateDetail script so that
> multiple package_id's can be sent in one transaction (and hence process
> invocation). The UpdateDetail signal was designed with this as an
> "easy-to-add" option. This would mean we can populate the client
> frontend with a single shot (on the first details click, although the
> first response would take a little bit longer) and just cache the
> details in the PkClient object. I don't think that would be particularly
> tricky to add.

I guess thats the "cover up a bad design decision by caching" approach...

> Well, I'm open to ideas. Any idea has to be easy to implement for all
> the backends (hence no dbus) and be easily testable.

I don't see at all why that is the case. Why can't you have a yum
backend as a loadable module that communicates via dbus with a
long-running yum process, while at the same time allowing a foobar
backend in a different module to communicate via stdout with shell
scripts ?

Anyway, I said I'm not going to volunteer for the rearchitecting, so I
am going to shut up now.


More information about the PackageKit mailing list