[packagekit] viability of the current yum backend ?
hughsient at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 12:49:13 PST 2008
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 20:25 +0000, Tom Parker wrote:
> On 03/01/2008, Elliot Peele <elliot.peele at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> This sort of problem is the reasoning behind some of the fun and games
> of the apt backend (at least with the sqlite caching switched on for
> that). I think the big problem is how to create a persistent backend
> object without blocking other tools that also want to use the relevant
> packaging system, but that's probably something that needs to be done
> in different ways for different backends.
Yes. It would suck big time if other command line and GUI tools got
locked out just because packagekitd is running. We need to be careful of
More information about the PackageKit