[packagekit] Packagekit and Ubuntu

[Michael Vogt]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:05:52AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Jean Hubbard <jean_p57 at hotmail.com>:
[..]
> > " Thanks for your bugreport.
> > We would love to use packagekit, but it does not support debconf or conffile
> > prompting. We attempted to contribute those missing features and
> > unfortunately they were not accepted on the ground that a packagekit
> > transaction can not be interrupted (for something like debconf or conffile
> > handling). This is a important feature for us and without it, e.g. sun-java
> > packages do not install."
> 
> This isn't true at all. Transactions can be stopped and re-started
> with different options (see
> http://www.packagekit.org/gtk-doc/introduction-ideas-transactions.html#introduction-ideas-transactions-sig-install
> for how all this works) and questions can be put to the user. We
> already do that for EULAs, GPG keys and extended authentication
> prompts. I'm just not letting a random script ask the user random
> non-localised questions. I am happy to add any number of questions, as
> long as they are abstracted out in a nice way that other distributions
> can use.
[..]

My understanding of your position has been that you will not support a
mechanism like debconf. Debconf provides localized questions and a
abstract UI based on a simple protocol. Its used to ask basic
configuration question before (and sometimes during) install. It
supports gnome and qt frontends. The Debian world (that includes
Ubuntu) quite likes debconf. 

I still stand to what I wrote above. I would love to use PK as the
backend for the software-store project. I think its great to have a
single tool for all distros. But I also want to ensure that it works
on all valid deb packages. That includes debconf questions and
configuration file prompts (another area that seems to be problematic,
but its less important as there is some work being done to map that do
debconf). The reason why its useful to ask configuration file changes
prompts during the install is that when a daemon restarts, it makes
sense to restart them with the new config (if the users wants that).

In the aptdaemon project (that was written by Sebastian and draws a
lot of inspiration from PK) deconf support is integrated. I'm
absolutely willing to work on adding that to PK if there is a chance
of this getting accepted. Even if its just a deb-systems-only option. 

> > So what i would like to know is, if this may may be possible in a future
> > release of PK or what?
> 
> Sure, it just needs someone from Ubuntu to contribute the code. I
> guess it's harder contributing to a shared project than just writing
> _yet_another_ frontend to apt, but I guess that's the Ubuntu way. 
[..]

This has been discussed in the past and you expressed that you do not
want any sort of interaction during a transaction as a policy
decision. Its documented:
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html#hughsies-law 

This does not map well to the deb package world. Of course your
reasons are valid, in 99% of the cases it is not needed and the end
user does not care. But we do want to cover 100% of the packages,
especially since the goal is to cover updates (that can be any
packages and not just applications) and generic packages as well. Most
users won't ever see a debconf dialog, but if the packages requires
it, then it should be there.

[..]
> distributions in public. For what it's worth, Sebastian Heinlein has
> been doing a great job supporting the apt backend for PackageKit, but
> the reception PackageKit is getting in Ubuntu (especially the
> integration points) is distinctly lukewarm.

This is because of the points mentioned above. It can be debatted if
the deb format should change and/or if debconf is a good idea or
not. But if we want to provide a way to install every valid deb
package  (including the packages that require debconf) now, then
PK is not a option (and that is unfortunate).

> We need someone interested in this to actually write some code, rather
> than just decide it's "too hard" and run away and write more code that
> will be obsolete (in my opinion) in a few years anyway. 
[..]

I do not think the reason is "its too hard". Its about the PK policy
being incompatible with the Debian/Ubuntu policy. 

[..]
> actually wants to implement this, I've written quite a lot about it on
> the mailing lists, or I would happy to discuss things in person, on a
> conf call, or even in IRC.

If there is a chance that debconf support would be accepted I would
certainly be interessted in working on this.

Cheers,
 Michael