[packagekit] PackageKit 1.0.0 released!

[Anders F Björklund]

Matthias Klumpp wrote:

>>> - Remove support for distros not supporting /etc/os-release (Richard Hughes)
>>> 
>>> You should probably fallback to checking for /usr/lib/os-release according to
>>> 
>>> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
>> 
>> I guess this settles whether the FreeBSD ports/pkgng should stay in ?
>> It doesn't have os-release, and having systemd seems very unlikely...
>> 
>>        "Porting systemd to other kernel is not feasible."

> There is no need for porting all of systemd. Just adding an
> /etc/os-release file would be enough to restore compatibility (and
> that file is pretty dumb and os-agnostic).

So add a systemd file, just for "compatibility" with PackageKit ?
That sounds about as good as faking a /proc tree, or something...

And what it should say for the distribution's NAME ? "Ports" ?
Can't even imagine what the VERSION would be. The INDEX timestamp ?


Or should it return the major OS version instead, like it did before:
e.g. FreeBSD 10.0 (from "10.0-RELEASE-p9" or something like that)

Seems weird that a file called os-release doesn't have the OS in it.
Not that the Linux kernel release is all that useful, but anyway.


So the issue seems different from what the location of the file is.

Like whether PackageKit even wants to support other operating systems ?
(not saying that those other OS wants to support PackageKit either)

At least Smart was removed, so I don't have to sort out that "distro".
(hard to answer what distribution you are, if you work on both/all)

There's already the problem of upstream files, versus distro files ?

Mixing up Operating System and Distribution doesn't really help here.
Especially not when adding to the packages and applications confusion.

We already went over this with Zero Install, so won't reiterate here.


> Just a while ago I added a patch to make PK compile again on the *BSD
> kernel in Debian (admittedly, it was me who accidentially added the
> Linux-only functionality in the first place  ;-P)

Well, one could just restore the old variant - if that was needed.

Seemed more reasonable to use the uname(3) name and release, when
there was no "distribution" available. Whatever it is needed for.

Using DistroUpgrade is problematic anyway, since it "only" updates
the packages (or ports) and not the underlying operating system...

i.e. you would also have to call "freebsd-update", at some point.


But think I will just go back in lurker mode, since it is not like
anyone is actually actively using the FreeBSD backends anyway. :-P

To be honest I'm not even sure if it is *possible* to run GNOME 3
on it, maybe that is why it has a new desktop environment (Lumina).

--anders