[packagekit] viability of the current yum backend ?

Boyd Timothy btimothy at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 13:28:38 PST 2008

On Jan 3, 2008 1:49 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> this.

Granted, the zypp backend is fairly new and still highly a prototype,
but right now it's actually locking other zypp tools out because
packagekitd is running.  I'm going to be sending a list of questions
here in a few minutes, but thought I'd point out that much of this
conversation is also relevant to the zypp backend.


More information about the PackageKit mailing list