[packagekit] viability of the current yum backend ?

Elliot Peele elliot.peele at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 12:00:35 PST 2008

We have the same sort of problems with the Conary backend. Maybe we
should come up with a python based dbus interface that both the Yum and
Conary backends could use to communicate with PackageKit.


On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 08:22 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Playing around with pk-update-viewer quite a bit in the last few days,
> > I have come to seriously doubt that the approach of the current yum
> > backend is viable for creating an acceptable user experience. Moving
> > the selection up and down in the package list constantly brings up the
> > progress bar for multiple seconds. Pup runs circles around
> > pk-update-viewer in terms of responsiveness here.
> > 
> > Running a separate yum process for each ui action is never going to
> > fast enough, and trying to "fix" this by caching in the frontend is
> > only going to complicate things further...
> > 
> > Not that I am volunteering to rearchitect the yum backend, but I think
> > it has to be done.
> > 
> > I wonder what thoughts of the yum people on this are ?
> > 
> You are right, it sucks to setup yum each time we do some kind of 
> packagekit backend action, the way to do it is have some kind of 
> persistence yum object loaded one time and let the the helper script 
> call it over DBUS.
> Another way to speed things up is to let some of the commands take list 
> of package id, so we don't have to make some many calls.
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> PackageKit mailing list
> PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit

More information about the PackageKit mailing list