[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PackageKit major annoyances

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 21:40 +0100, Mark wrote:
>> I'm using package kit now to try and get used to it but it has some
>> major unexpected annoyances.
>> It where 2 issues when i started writing this but after the first line
>> here mplayer was done installing.. the message that follows is No. 3
>> now in the major annoyances.
> Right, as an aside, you probably want to make suggestions like this on
> the PackageKit mailing list -- then we can talk with the other distros
> and the other people writing code.

Yea and register on another list to fill my gmail :P o well.. perhaps
you see it there in about an hour or so..
>> I think that should be written in bold then the
>> description below it and the rpm name + architecture should not even
>> be there
> I've been working hard recently making the summary text more useful --
> package names are not really interesting. If I said to you "search for a
> image editor", how many package names could you name?

No. Search in the description the display the results as:

Package name - Version - Architecture (maybe)
Description Line 1
Description Line 2
Description Line 3

And done! nothing more.
>> Or add a filter to only show the packages of your architecture.
> You probably need to file a bug about this. I normally add exactarch=1
> in my yum.conf file, and I might even argue we should do this my
> default.

I will fill a bug report about this. (once i find the packagekit bugzilla)
>> 3. Oke, mplayer is done installing now and now it asks me to run it..
>> why? I really can't think of a valid reason to even ask the user that!
>> it's pointless!
> You installed it for a reason, right? Surely if I'm compelled to install
> a specific application, we should offer to run it? Why make the user
> navigate the menus and find the correct name and icon?

No, you should not offer it to run. It's unexpected and not asked for behaviour.
All other distros (that i've used) just install it and are done. They
don't offer the option to run it. Fedora with packagekit somehow needs
to act different and that shouldn't happen. Stick to the way other
distros work and your fine. that's a proven way and works fine.
>> 4. Another (minor) thing. I installed the rpm fusion package (so that
>> i can install mplayer) and apparently i hadn't confirmed that i was
>> willing to use rpm fusion.. so PackageKit came with a message to ask
>> me if i'm sure that i want to install a package from that repo with
>> that name.. bla bla bla..
> Not bla. The first time it was asking you for auth to install a package,
> which you can save so it never asks you again. The second time it's
> asking you for the admin password which you cannot save as it's
> unsigned. The geeky logic is here:
> http://www.packagekit.org/gtk-doc/introduction-ideas-transactions.html#introduction-ideas-transactions-sig-install
>> Yum doesn't do that so don't do that in PackageKit.
> Yum is a python program running as root.
>> Further more packagekit is way to early on in development to use in
>> fedora!
> Thanks...
>> It's getting better all the time but can i do a groupinstall
>> already? (like for example the KDE group)!
> Yes. Click the "Package Collections" group.
O wow didn't know that.
It looks nice (not really)
In the left you have the groups. let me right click one and then pick:
"Install this group" or something like it

>> Can i have the old package manager back that could do those things but
>> just looked ugly?
> It didn't just look ugly, it had core architectural problems. PackageKit
> is a different framework, not an application.

Another reason why it should mature first befora getting included in
fedora as the default package management system
>> Synaptic. I never understood why another package
>> management system was needed.. nearly every distro has it's own
>> package management application... such a big waste.
> You might want to checkout the PackageKit website. PackageKit is being
> shipped in over 15 distributions now.

i did. i can't find the page that says which distro's are using packagekit..
Do you have a link for me?
>> O well, this was just my opinion about PackageKit. I hope something
>> can be done about those 4 points i summed up.
> Right, as I said initially, you probably want to talk about upstream
> software on an upstream mailing list. PackageKit isn't Fedora specific
> at all.

Perhaps. I'm not all that exited about packagekit.. I am about the
backend though ^_^
> Richard.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]