PolicyKit 0.90 (pre-)release

David Zeuthen david at fubar.dk
Mon Feb 9 19:36:31 PST 2009

On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 22:16 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Just curious: Why the rename from PolicyKit to polkit and
> PolicyKit-gnome to polkit-gnome?

Mostly because the name was going to change.

> Would you like package descriptions to be updated and use the new names?

Yeah, I think so.

> I also find it a bit ugly, that you tag a -1 to each and every
> instance, even the D-Bus name.

Sure, but these are just names. It's just a measure to ensure we can do
polkit-2, polkit-3 and so on in the future if we need to.

> Which brings me to my next concern: Apparently you want to have those
> versions to be completely co-installable. What happens to already
> granted permissions, will they be migrated, will we have two databases
> which are completely out of sync?

I have no plans for migration scripts, no, and I'm not sure it's really

> This brings me to the question, why have co-installability at all? Why
> does PolicyKit 0.90 not simply provide the the legacy backwards
> compatible interfaces (libs and D-Bus) and simply imports and converts
> the exising authentication db on first run.

The new version is significantly different from the PolicyKit 0.9.x
series that it's not practical to have compat interfaces. The reason for
parallel installability is to make it easier for distros to migrate. 

FWIW, the plan I have for Fedora is to introduce the new packages early
in the next unstable cycle and then remove the older compat packages
after a few months; porting shouldn't be difficult at all.


More information about the polkit-devel mailing list