| 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 |
Archives