[packagekit] Apt backend is back

[Daniel Nicoletti]

Right so them Synaptic isn't portable too? If it's problem is a function,
it's just a matter of using another which is better... Nobody ever
complained about forkpty, if you think it's crap can't you give an
advice about what could be used.

2011/12/3 Andrew Stormont <andyjstormont at gmail.com>:
> The C++ backend is not portable as it uses crap like forkpty.
> I for one am glad somebody has taken the effort to fix the python backend.
>
> On 03/12/2011 07:38, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
>
>>Sebastian Heinlein wrote:
>>> As you have perhaps already seen in the latest commits to master I
>>> decided to revive the Python based APT backend. The backend is ported to
>>> the latest python-apt API.
>>
>>The obvious question here is: why?
>>
>>APT is written in C++, not Python, and, while I'm not using it personally
>>(I
>>use Fedora, not anything deb-based), AFAIK, the native aptcc backend is
>>working fine, so why revive the Python-based one? We have an application
>>in
>>C and a library in C++, so why go through Python?
>>
>>Python backends are actually not that great for PackageKit, and in fact
>>one
>>of the reasons Richard started zif is to have a non-Python backend for
>>Fedora.
>>
>>        Kevin Kofler
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>PackageKit mailing list
>>PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
>>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PackageKit mailing list
> PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit