| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2009 23:20:36 schrieb Mounir Lamouri: |
| 2 |
> The backend is now ready. You should be able to do anything in a |
| 3 |
> beta/realease candidate quality. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That is a damn interesting information. Sounds great! |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> - configuration file update |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In the means of "cfg-update -u" or similar? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> - messages / warning / errors show |
| 12 |
> They are not critical for testing but only for a daily usage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I've already done the portage work for the first feature but I will have |
| 17 |
> to add signal to packagekit because even if debian also needs it, it |
| 18 |
> hasn't been implemented yet. The bad thing is GUI will probably not |
| 19 |
> manage this feature since a quite long time. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(sorry if I sound dumb, just want to be sure I didn't misunderstand) does that |
| 22 |
mean that you'll be adding the config updating stuff to packagekit, so we'll |
| 23 |
have a cross-distro way of telling the package manager to update the configs? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> About the packaging. I've worked on a packagekit ebuild and even if I |
| 26 |
> didn't take time to add it to the tree it could be done without a lot of |
| 27 |
> work but there is not real need at the moment because -as I said before- |
| 28 |
> without a GUI, packagekit is quite useless and last version of |
| 29 |
> gnome-packagekit needs a version gnome-policykit that is not in the tree. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Could you post the ebuild in here? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I wanted to test KPackageKit since I saw it in Kubuntu :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php/KPackageKit?content=84745 |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> After these two features, I will probably have some small things and |
| 38 |
> bugs and I will move to big things for packagekit or portage needed to |
| 39 |
> make the backend better. Indeed, there are a lot of things I've listed |
| 40 |
> that are not really needed for a working backend and too big to be part |
| 41 |
> of the gsoc. For example, merging layman into portage (actually, API |
| 42 |
> will be easy but UI probably less) and having a non-verbose portage API |
| 43 |
> because backends are using stdout for signals. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Wow, that sounds like great changes! |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Many thanks for tackling them! Gentoo might yet become useful for GUI-addicts |
| 48 |
;) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> If by any chance, you test the backend, do not hesitate to contact me |
| 51 |
> for bug reports or comments. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I don't know if I'll manage to grab enough time to do real testing, but I'll |
| 54 |
try. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I asked for status, because I think that packagekit can be a huge step in |
| 57 |
usability for Gentoo, so I was curious how your project works out. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Best wishes, |
| 60 |
Arne |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- |
| 63 |
- singing a part of the history of free software - |
| 64 |
http://infinite-hands.draketo.de |
Archives