[packagekit] Packagekit and Ubuntu

[Daniel Nicoletti]

> Well, can you detect it's a EULA when it's been installed? Could you
> install the package, and just defer the processing of the postinst
> scripts for the "second" stage of the install? I appreciate that the
> package would be half-installed at this stage, but the fact that
> you're asking the pre-install EULA question /after/ you've installed
> the package sounds legally dubious anyway.
No, at the  moment it's impossible to find out this is an EULA agreement,
also you are confusing problems here.
The problem is that some packages requires that debconf is run to do
something (in java case is an EULA agreement, but the mysql
maintainers could require you to input you root password).
Also Debian is not doing the wrong thing about EULA, you can download
Java from many source but just right before you install it asks you
to agree, the package is not installed if you do not agree. Most softwares do
this way, just because we can't find out that _before_ downloading doesn't
mean it's wrong.

As I already said in this list I had 3 problems with apt vs packagekit,
and 1 of them is fixed (simulate-* solves it), now I'm working on
doing package install to fix the other two.

> > Oh, it's not only an Ubuntu thing. PackageKit isn't currently
> > available in Debian. There are strong feelings against PackageKit
> > in the Debian community - PackageKit per se would violate the
> > Debian Policy.
> 
> Because of the lack of a VTE when installing or for more political reasons?

IMO this is because we don't like to put stuff that don't really work,
It's not PackageKit fault, it's the lack of man power to code and do
a backend that can install any kind of package, it should work at least like
apt-get install does, apt-get/aptitude sometimes fails to install stuff,
and their messages could be given to the user to handle the conflict.

I'm writing KPackageKit because I want it running on Debian, and I'm
also writing aptcc because it's the way I can make this faster, aptcc
is almost able to handle all these problems, I just need time to finish
it, so instead of blaming each other, we should think on how to best
fix these issues.

Daniel.



----- Mensagem original ----
> De: Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com>
> Para: PackageKit users and developers list <packagekit at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 16 de Setembro de 2009 5:08:20
> Assunto: Re: [packagekit] Packagekit and Ubuntu
> 
> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Heinlein :
> > The problem is how to detect a debconf question that is an EULA? This
> > could be done using a whitelist or by a naming convention. But it
> > would require to extract and get the information from the package file
> > outside of APT.
> 
> Well, can you detect it's a EULA when it's been installed? Could you
> install the package, and just defer the processing of the postinst
> scripts for the "second" stage of the install? I appreciate that the
> package would be half-installed at this stage, but the fact that
> you're asking the pre-install EULA question /after/ you've installed
> the package sounds legally dubious anyway.
> 
> > By the way the Debian Policy even discourages to use debconf for EULA
> > questions. But I am not sure if there will be a change in Debian to
> > introduce an EULA mechanism at all - since this helps to propagate
> > proprietary software.
> 
> That's insane. If you Debian don't introduce a standard way to do
> this, then packages will abuse other mechanisms (either hijacking
> other parts of debconf or asking for random stdin) -- you certainly
> can't fix the world by deliberately omitting a method from a packaging
> system.
> 
> > But the best solution would be to just show the EULA at the first
> > start to each user. Can a sys admin agree to an EULA for another user?
> 
> Depends on the EULA. Most EULAs legally should be per-user, where you
> agree to how you're using the software on first run, repeated for each
> logically different user.
> 
> For installing, a Licence Agreement (the End User part is not relevant
> for admins installing) is something the person installing the software
> would agree to, and typically would agree to a prompt before the
> package is downloaded and installed, not after the package has been
> installed. It's important for a packaging system to identify that a LA
> != EULA.
> 
> > But this requires changes by upstream.
> 
> Sure, at the moment I would argue that Debian is breaking the letter
> of the law putting a EULA in a post-inst action, even if it's in the
> spirit of the law by asking in the first place.
> 
> I don't disagree that doing things properly is hard. I don't disagree
> that doing things properly takes more time than a quick bodge. I
> certainly do think that it's worth doing, as quick bodges are not a
> way to build a sustainable ecosystem.
> 
> > Oh, it's not only an Ubuntu thing. PackageKit isn't currently
> > available in Debian. There are strong feelings against PackageKit
> > in the Debian community - PackageKit per se would violate the
> > Debian Policy.
> 
> Because of the lack of a VTE when installing or for more political reasons?
> 
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> PackageKit mailing list
> PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com