[packagekit] PackageKit support for Fedora modularity?

Stef Walter stefw at redhat.com
Thu Aug 3 10:03:37 UTC 2017

On 03.08.2017 11:59, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 August 2017 at 10:29, Martin Pitt <mpitt at redhat.com> wrote:
>> From the docs it appears that such a module should be treated more like a
>> package and less like a repository; at least dnf is being modified heavily to
>> support this.
> Do you know where the metadata will be that defines what's in each module?
>> PK would most likely need to grow
>> a more thorough understanding of what a module is.
> Can't we just pass this down to the lower levels? I'm not against
> adding API, but I'd really like to re-use as much stuff as we can. At
> the moment PK only understands:
> * sources
> * packages
> * groups (i.e. a flat group)
> * categories (i.e. a hierarchical tree)
> I think the module would be best defined as a set of categories. Ideas welcome.

A module has versions too. Do categories?

One of the fundamental concepts in module is that one can choose to
'follow' a specific version of the module and RPMs from other versions
of the same module are not considered when doing updates.

Just double checking that 'categories' can expose that concept?

For example, if I select to install the the 2.2 version of the httpd
module then no rpms in the 2.4 version of the httpd module (including
php or mod_ssl built against apache 2.4) should be exposed to the user.

Certainly the implementation underneath should be used, and PackageKit
should just be a wrapper.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 220 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/packagekit/attachments/20170803/9d4ce090/attachment.sig>

More information about the PackageKit mailing list