[packagekit] AppInstall: Suggestion for application management with Listaller

[Matthias Klumpp]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:45:20 +0200, Anders F Björklund <afb at algonet.se>
wrote:
> Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 
>> So, that's it. I would like to have optional support for Listaller,
>> because the API changes a lot at time and I'd need some time to  
>> change a
>> few things in Listaller to make it depend on AppInstall. If we have
>> Listaller support in KPackageKit, we would have one frontend to  
>> manage all
>> apps on the system and one tool to manage everything software- 
>> related. (Of
>> course I would drop the current LI frontends)
>> What do you think?
> 
> Or you could just "wrap" the applications into backend-specific  
> packages,
> and use the regular install/uninstall procedure to avoid having two  
> sets.
This was a suggestion from dantti, but Richard didn't like it, cause
everything has to identify with a packageID.
So AppInstall would need Listaller-specific PackageIDs.
We can discuss this, but this is Richard's dicision.

> If you want Listaller to support both types, then it makes sense to  
> have two
> backends there (one PackageKit, one setup.exe-runner) instead of vice- 
> versa.
This does not match the concept of PK. A backend interfaces with the
distribution's package manager, Listaller is only necessary for some
specific cases. But using a custom packageID for Listaller-only apps could
be a solution.

> At least that is how it works in Zero Install, where you can install  
> from
> both archives and packages. Where using the packages invokes PackageKit:
Listaller is some meta-uninstaller. It can remove any kind of application,
and install software in the IPK format, which works similar to 0install.
I do want to discuss including the AppManager part of Listaller in
PackageKit. The installer part maybe later, but at time I don't want this.
(I can explain on IRC why I don't want this)

> Of course, using packages also breaks two of the main Zero Install  
> goals:
> 
> * Anyone can install software (PackageKit requires authentication)
> * Anyone can distribute software (PackageKit requires distributions)
> * Automatic updates
> * Good security
We have the first issue too in Listaller IPK... But this is another topic.

By the way, I discussed the inclusion with the Listaller team, and we had
a 100% consent in favor of an Listaller inclusion into PK instead of
continuing the development of our own frontends.
We reviewed the current AppInstall layout and Chris invented a new design,
which fits the Listaller requirements and also makes the DB easier to
handle. (He is experienced in database design)
You can view a diagram of the proposal here:
http://listaller.nlinux.org/wiki/doku.php/listaller-pk-appinstall-db-layout-draft
Regards
  Matthias