Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
Matthew Paul Thomas
mpt at canonical.com
Mon Apr 6 09:09:27 UTC 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Martin Olsson wrote on 02/04/09 10:42:
> Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>> We have not made any decisions about whether this program would be
>> based on PackageKit, Add/Remove Applications, Synaptic, or something
>> else, or written from scratch. We should first design what it will do
>> and how it will behave, then work out how to implement it.
> As you now doubt have heard numerous times already, if we could ever
> get to a consistent interface between RPM / DEB based distros that
> would be a gigantic win for Linux overall. For some extent I therefore
> think Canonical should have at least a small packagekit bias, should
> all the available options be _roughly_ equivalent.
It's not a matter of Canonical (or anyone else) having a "bias". It's a
matter of measuring benefits against costs. For example, if PackageKit
makes it easier for third-party applications to request the installation
of software components on the fly, that would be a benefit. Conversely,
if PackageKit unavoidably makes progress feedback worse, or makes change
queueing less practical to implement, that's a cost.
> The "new updates available" screen doesn't tell the user which ones
> are critical/security updates.
> Popularity stats should not be skewed by "default installs" so I don't
> think it should be based straight on popcon (maybe it should be
> weighted against some list of default installed apps or something).
Added to the wiki page, thanks.
> I think the terms "Ubuntu Software" and "Partner Software" is a bit
> unclear. It sounds like the partner software is not Ubuntu software? I
> guess you are referring to Canonical Maintained apps but I don't have
> a better name for it.
It's referring to Canonical's Partner repository.
> Why is "Fonts" it's own top-level item next to "Ubuntu Software"?
Because presenting fonts as software packages makes little sense. (I
understand that argument could be made for other types of data too.)
> I see that the "Description" field for each update is working properly
> in your mockup. I really hope that you will list that as a explicitly
> feature and make sure it "just works".
Added to the wiki page.
Matthew Paul Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss