[packagekit] an honest look at gnome-packagekit

[Richard Hughes]

On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 08:58 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> b) The main way to get to the update viewer is via the status icon. If
> I come from
> there, I have already made the choice to 'view' the updates, instead
> of installing them right away, so I am probably interested in the
> details. If I were just interested
> in the breakdown of how many security vs bug fix updates, those
> numbers are already in the tooltip on the icon (I think).

Hmm, sure, but this gives the user the option to just "install them all"
if he's seen there is only 2 bugfix updates for example. Plus, it's a
nice place to put the refresh and history buttons.

> > This doesn't work particularly well with the GpkClient shared GPG and
> > EULA code - it can be done, but why do you think this would be better?
> b) It allows to display meaningful progress parallel operations, e.g.
> downloading several packages while others are already installing

I was talking to Thomas about this yesterday -- at the moment PackageKit
can't cope with simultaneous sub-tasks, well, it won't break, but the UI
will only show the most recent sub-task result. I'm not sure if this is
worth fixing until a backend comes along that wants to do this.

> c) The main point is to fight the "multiple resizing and jumping
> windows" syndrome.
> The progress window is just too busy.

Right, we need to fix the resizing and do more ellipsing. (sp?)

> >> - always ask before installing a file
> >
> > Well, in 0.2.0 if the user trusts the gpg key, and he's saved auth, then
> > he won't be prompted. He'll only be prompted when the gpg key is
> > untrusted. Or by ask, do you mean just a polite "Do you want to install
> > foo?" rather than authenticate?
> 
> Yes, was thinking of "Do you want to install foo ?".

Right, that's easy to add. I'll do that now.

> Also, if we could
> find a way to avoid installing Fedora rpms on Suse, and vice versa,
> that would be nice. 

Do suse rpm's always have a particular suffix/prefix? Do Fedora ones? I
thought the .fcX. bit was optional.

> But I think that may be hard, while at the same time still allowing third-party
> packages to be installed.

Maybe we can warn in this case. I'm not sure.

Richard.