[packagekit] Anjuta and PackageKit

Richard Hughes hughsient at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 02:28:07 PDT 2008


On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 14:32 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > This pops up a window a bit like this:
> > http://packagekit.org/img/gpk-client-codecs.png where the user is asked
> > to confirm the action, and then agree to any EULA or GPG signing
> > questions. When the software is installed, we return TRUE, else you get
> > return FALSE and a nice error code and description.
> 
>  But, IMNSHO, this is a terrible solution to the problem. Apart from
> looking like an API created by a 13yr old on a sugar high

Thanks... got any better ideas? You can use libpackagekit(-glib|-qt) if
you want low level access.

> , the above
> makes the calling package automatically dependant on dbus ... and not
> anything PackageKit related.

PackageKit depends on DBUS. If you're in the session, you'll have DBUS.

>  Also, as the rest of this thread shows, there's no good way to pick a
> good 9th (9th!) argument.

9th? I don't see a problem using a dbus call with 3 arguments (xid,
timespec, packagename) -- the rest is overhead caused by dbus-glib. If
you use python it is literally 3 arguments.

> None of the proposed hacks would work for:
> "./configure && make && make install" ... which kind of makes the whole
> point of PackageKit seem moot.

Do you mean not having a common name? That problem is _unfixable_ -- the
only way to do this is install a provide type, which then has to be
agreed on by all distros. I really think asking the distros to apply a
one line patch to fix the package name is not a big deal. It's what they
do.

>  I would normally just wait for it to be fixed, but it looks like you're
> proposing the solution as basically done ... when it doesn't look to
> have really started, yet.

I'm not sure what you think should be changed -- can you be more exact?
Thanks.

Richard.





More information about the PackageKit mailing list