[packagekit] viability of the current yum backend ?

Robin Norwood rnorwood at redhat.com
Wed Jan 2 13:25:35 PST 2008

Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:45 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> 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 ?
> Sure, we could do that over DBUS. We just have to decide when to start
> and stop it. Is the biggest issue the serialized input and output
> constraining us (which I'm not sure that it does that much) or the fact
> that we keep instantiating a new yum process?

Well, quickly playing around with 'time' leads me to think that this

backend = PackageKitYumBackend(sys.argv[1:])

Takes about half a second to complete, over and above running just the
imports and then exiting.

Instantiating the backend object does all of the yum setup as well.  I
think there's probably a bigger win in keeping a persistant yum, but
some caching might be helpful as well.


Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

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

More information about the PackageKit mailing list