1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
New weekly report via answer to Arne. |
4 |
This week wasn't the most productive I had. Mostly because of the ebuild |
5 |
work which take easily hours (yes, I should use ccache) and because of |
6 |
the summer and good weather. |
7 |
But, now, you can test my work and blame me, that should make everyone |
8 |
happy ! :) |
9 |
|
10 |
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: |
11 |
>> - configuration file update |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> In the means of "cfg-update -u" or similar? |
14 |
> |
15 |
[snip] |
16 |
> (sorry if I sound dumb, just want to be sure I didn't misunderstand) does that |
17 |
> mean that you'll be adding the config updating stuff to packagekit, so we'll |
18 |
> have a cross-distro way of telling the package manager to update the configs? |
19 |
> |
20 |
Actually, this is going to be harder than excepted. Not technically |
21 |
speaking but it looks like people (backend/packagekit dev) want |
22 |
different things. |
23 |
So, in a first time, I'm going to show only a message about |
24 |
configuration files updated then I will take some time to discuss with |
25 |
devs and fix a specification. |
26 |
It looks like it will be an internal tool that will update configuration |
27 |
files but possible actions and how to interact have to be defined. |
28 |
So it will be a cross-distro way of updating configuration files. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Could you post the ebuild in here? |
31 |
> |
32 |
Good news is the ebuilds are now available in the gnome overlay. Why |
33 |
gnome overlay ? because they have polkit-0.93 and I needed the new |
34 |
polkit version. I've updated 0.5.1 version (last release) and live ebuild. |
35 |
0.5.1 should be ok for testing now because the release wasn't done long |
36 |
ago and since I mostly worked on packagekit build system and ebuild. |
37 |
If you found issues, please, send me a private email or open a bug but |
38 |
better not flooding ml. |
39 |
|
40 |
> I wanted to test KPackageKit since I saw it in Kubuntu :) |
41 |
> |
42 |
> - http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php/KPackageKit?content=84745 |
43 |
> |
44 |
I'm going to write an ebuild for gnome-packagekit. It's surely the best |
45 |
way to test packagekit because it's developed by the same guy. If anyone |
46 |
wants a KPackageKit ebuild, I can help but not write it. |
47 |
|
48 |
> I don't know if I'll manage to grab enough time to do real testing, but I'll |
49 |
> try. |
50 |
> |
51 |
Even small feedbacks are welcome ;) |
52 |
PackageKit should be tested with a GUI but as I have not released a |
53 |
gnome-packagekit ebuild, you have two ways to test it: |
54 |
- use pkcon which is a CLI client to packagekit but really basic like if |
55 |
you want to install foo package, it will install it and dependencies |
56 |
without telling you if you accept them. For 'atomic' tests, it's the |
57 |
best way of doing. |
58 |
- build yourself gnome-packagekit shouldn't be hard at all ;) |
59 |
|
60 |
So, this week, I will add a ACCEPT_PROPERTIES feature to portage. I was |
61 |
thinking of filtering interactive PROPERTIES in my backend but zac told |
62 |
me he was planning to add this feature. It should be available soon (one |
63 |
or two days) and the gnome-packagekit ebuild will be the next step. So, |
64 |
you should have it in two or three days. Depends on the difficulty. If |
65 |
the build system is clean as the PackageKit one was, it will be hard and |
66 |
I've no commit access to gnome-packagekit unfortunately. |
67 |
|
68 |
Thanks, |
69 |
Mounir |