[packagekit] Debconf and PackageKit Was Re: Packagekit and Ubuntu

[Jean Hubbard]

Has non-interactive debconf support been in PK for sometime or is this new in the 0.5 series?





> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:35:19 +0100
> From: hughsient at gmail.com
> To: packagekit at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [packagekit] Debconf and PackageKit Was Re: Packagekit and	Ubuntu
> 
> 2009/9/24 Sebastian Heinlein <sebi at glatzor.de>:
> > I have made up this plan to integrate debconf and conf file conflicts
> > into PackageKit. These issues will be handled during a running
> > transaction which will paused while waiting for an answer from the
> > user - new transaction will be blocked so long. To avoid an endless
> > block the caller-active property and a time out will be used.
> 
> If that's what we have to do, that's what we have to do. I can't say I
> like it, but if we can run things un-attended, ten it doesn't break
> too many of the use cases.
> 
> > If the backend recognizes a conf file conflict, pauses the transaction
> > and reports this to the packagekit daemon. The daemon checks if the
> > caller is still active. If so it sends a ConfigFileConlift signal with
> > the old and new file as attributes. The user would call a
> > ResolveConfigFileConflict method with the new file or possible
> > predefined values like "keep" or "replace". The daemon sends the
> > answer to the backend.
> 
> Sounds sane.
> 
> > If the caller is no longer available on the bus the daemon will report
> > this to the backend, which will choose a default action.
> 
> Doesn't the backend know if the caller is active or not?
> 
> > Would be basically the same as for config file conflicts. We could
> > use the proxy debconf frontend. This allows to communicate with
> > debconf using a socket. The backend would listen on the socket and
> > behave like a normal debconf frontend. A configuration question would
> > be send to the backend and from the daemon to the user using a signal.
> > The signal would need some further thinking since there are different
> > kind of possible questions e.g. yes/no, lists. See above for answer and
> > caller-active handling.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > A further issue is the communication with the backend. Currently we
> > cannot access the caller-active property from a spawned backend.
> > Should we send this information to the backend or limit this advanced
> > features to native backends?
> 
> There's no reason why we can't proxy this, the problem is that
> typically we set the data as environment variables (NETWORK etc) which
> don't change during the transaction. I'm not sure if you can change an
> running process' environment. Other ways to contact the running
> instance is just to dump more stuff to stdin, but if it's like the yum
> backend it's blocking whilst it's running to command.
> 
> Either way, I think it's best if the backend itself knows if the
> caller is active or not.
> 
> Richard.
> 
> p.s. Thanks for working on this.
> _______________________________________________
> PackageKit mailing list
> PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
http://windows.microsoft.com/shop
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/packagekit/attachments/20091023/65820288/attachment-0002.htm>